Inequality

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 7110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Inequality

Post by Andrew »

lunchstealer wrote:
07 Nov 2019, 21:45
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
07 Nov 2019, 21:35
Shem wrote:
07 Nov 2019, 20:33
My working theory is they think billionaires have money bins a la Scrooge McDuck, and they can just roll up with trucks and pack up two thirds of the contents and call it a day.
Yep.

Actually, if I had as much money as Gates, etc., I probably *would* have a basement vault filled with gold coins and jewels I could go wallow in because why not?
Because it's really heavy and it'd be a PITA to have your foundation shored up to handle it?
Plus the tendency to attract dragons.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29678
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Inequality

Post by Warren »

Andrew wrote:
08 Nov 2019, 11:40
lunchstealer wrote:
07 Nov 2019, 21:45
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
07 Nov 2019, 21:35
Shem wrote:
07 Nov 2019, 20:33
My working theory is they think billionaires have money bins a la Scrooge McDuck, and they can just roll up with trucks and pack up two thirds of the contents and call it a day.
Yep.

Actually, if I had as much money as Gates, etc., I probably *would* have a basement vault filled with gold coins and jewels I could go wallow in because why not?
Because it's really heavy and it'd be a PITA to have your foundation shored up to handle it?
Plus the tendency to attract dragons.
Having your own dragon is a given.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6785
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Inequality

Post by tr0g »

We're almost to the point where billionaires start genetically engineering dragons for lulz, but not quite yet.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
JD
Posts: 11982
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Inequality

Post by JD »

Congress is considering imposing an interest rate cap: https://www.n pr.org/2019/11/07/776769597/a-ban-on-high-cost-loans-may-be-coming

It's hard to defend payday lenders, but frankly most of the arguments for the cap are patronizing at best. "It's hard to imagine who would want to take out a loan with an interest rate of of 150 or 200% a year."
"There are so many other alternatives. There are credit union loans. Families turn to nonprofits, to their churches."
And the borrowers are "likely just plain financially illiterate."

Yeah, but THOSE ALREADY EXIST. If they covered everyone's needs, presumably there wouldn't be any payday lenders. Just to try it out, I googled a few payday lenders' websites and looked for information for various states. Some of them definitely make it easier than others. For https://www.cashnetusa.com/, there's big text that says stuff like "APR: 260%". For https://www.acecashexpress.com/, there's an annoying image of a table, but there it is: "APR: 391%" For others, I had trouble finding rates without going through a whole process. If you're going to take out a loan, I do think it's kind of your responsibility to find out what the rate is, though. The alternative is a fairly frank position that people are dim cow-like creatures who can't understand things and must be kept safe by their betters.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 25640
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Inequality

Post by Jennifer »

"By almost every major statistical measurement,* the average American is worse off than they were a generation ago."

*Except the measurement of "Precisely what cutting-edge technology is available to them, compared to previous generations."

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the- ... ket-newtab
... In the future, people will probably point to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as the inflection point where the US began its slow descent away from global dominance. But the truth is that the deteriorating forces have been at work within the country for decades.

By almost every major statistical measurement, the average American is worse off than they were a generation ago. Some pundits have taken to blaming the younger generations, saying that they’re entitled, self-centered, too absorbed in their smartphones to work,8 and while some of those complaints may have a grain of truth to them, the data suggests that the kids are not the problem.

Generally speaking, Americans today, especially young Americans, are the most educated and productive generation in US history [chart]:

But they are also incredibly underemployed or unemployed: [chart]

This is for the simple reason that there are no jobs, especially middle-class jobs. Despite Obama’s impressive proclamation that he’s halved the unemployment rate since he took office, most of the drop in unemployment since the 2008 crisis has come from part-time or low-skilled jobs, and from people leaving the workforce altogether....
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL »

There is a lot of nonsense in there. I can take or leave the harmfulness of the american dream idea, but ... it's super weird that he didn't talk about women at all, their successes, their education, their earnings, their outcomes. It's super weird that the post recession trend line for under employment isn't discussed at all. His data set for employment and wages stop at either '14 or 15 and we have had 4 years of expansion in those areas since then. The analysis of global trade and economic development is not sophisticated.

Look, we may be an relatively low growth era for the foreseeable future. We may be in a world where certain skills have tremendously more value in the market than others. But that's not the only story.


User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL »

Here's the follow up Household income one:


User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29895
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Inequality

Post by thoreau »



America's billionaires are not earning their keep.
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 10673
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Inequality

Post by nicole »

Oh right. Forgot to post this. Thread for JasonL --



Allegedly, people are still moving far for jobs, but not near for housing.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16956
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Inequality

Post by Aresen »

So let's implement rent controls to give them even less incentive to move.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL »

It's an interesting story. The thing about rents and housing being notably expensive is, that's only true in super expensive neighborhoods/zip codes. There is a lot of the country where it's pretty in line with historical averages. That story lines up with the delay in household formation until a lot of millennials got into their 30s. Household formation is a combination of getting married which is down and moving out otherwise which was also down. There's a bit of a myth I hear 30somethings bandy about around who could afford what kind of house at what point in their lives before they faced their unique horror. A) many of those people had 2 income households initially, certainly many of the Xers; B) house footprint keeps getting bigger outside of metros so you aren't talking apples to apples; C) housing that is smaller and is not new and is not in the hottest neighborhoods is not notably expensive.

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8273
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem »

JasonL wrote:
25 Nov 2019, 16:20
The thing about rents and housing being notably expensive is, that's only true in super expensive neighborhoods/zip codes.
What percentage of the population live in or adjacent to those zip codes?
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL »

I mean, just scanning, NYC/NJ metro is like 20M and LA/Long Beach/Anaheim is like 13M. Chicago is like 9.5M, then you get to a bunch of 6-7M areas like DFW and Houston and Philly.

But my contention is many of these entail 'adjacent' areas that are significantly less expensive than the most desirable neighborhoods. Talking ex rectum, how expensive is it really to rent in Long Island? Newark? So this lack of local movement and home formation in some sense entails not making those decisions. I think this is a micro area as well as a macro area issue. I know lots of people who would not move out in my local area if they couldn't get a place that was close enough to the bars they wanted to go to. Thats a fine decision but you don't then get to say no housing is affordable when it totally was everywhere outside of the area you thought was cool.

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7509
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Inequality

Post by Jadagul »

There are also the questions about where jobs are. I know people who work in, like, urban L.A. and live fifty miles out because it's more affordable there. They're clearly _willing_ to move but that's still an affordability problem.

(Also it is a problem if it's expensive for people to live the places they would like to live. It is better if people can live where they want to live.)

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20108
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

I hear the Hamptons are a bit pricey.

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8273
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Inequality

Post by Shem »

JasonL wrote:
25 Nov 2019, 17:20
I mean, just scanning, NYC/NJ metro is like 20M and LA/Long Beach/Anaheim is like 13M. Chicago is like 9.5M, then you get to a bunch of 6-7M areas like DFW and Houston and Philly.
You're off by several million for at least one of those. Greater LA is about 18 million.
But my contention is many of these entail 'adjacent' areas that are significantly less expensive than the most desirable neighborhoods. Talking ex rectum, how expensive is it really to rent in Long Island? Newark?


Using the area with the most expansive mass transit system in the country as your point of comparison is not really all that helpful for your argument. I mean, people working in Seattle can live in Renton or Bremerton, but the savings are going to be offset by at least one car per household and, in the case of the cheapest areas, a ferry commute. And in turn, it pushes the people who work in those areas even further out, with jobs that are even less liable to pay enough to offset the increased cost.

Point is, given that something like as much as a third of the country's population are having their housing markets distorted by those zip codes, maybe just dismissing it with "there are cheaper places they could live" is a little reductionist.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7509
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Inequality

Post by Jadagul »

The MSA, which does include Long Beach and Anaheim, is 13m. The CSA, which also includes Riverside and San Bernardino, is 18m. I was gonna say that these purposes the 13m is probably the better number, because Riverside is not especially expensive; but then I looked up apartment prices in Riverside and changed my mind.

[And a brief Craigslist hit makes it look like Long Island studios are going for like a thousand or more.]

But Shem's point is the real one. There are cheap real estate markets around the expensive real estate markets, but those people are still working in the expensive areas and just having stupidly long fucking commutes.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19455
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Inequality

Post by Hugh Akston »

Which is exactly why the revolution will be worked remotely y'all.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL »

Those are all choices. People can make that choice but you don’t get to strike out every lower cost short commute metro in the country and still cry about there being a unique housing shortage.

Too and we all know this, the people who live there absolutely do not believe it should be cheap to live there because that lowers the value they get from living there.

There is nothing to be done about traffic in LA. It’s trash and at capacity and will be forever until the place slides into the ocean.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29678
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Inequality

Post by Warren »

JasonL wrote:
25 Nov 2019, 20:53
There is nothing to be done about traffic in LA.

Of course there is. It's like the first thing on the libertarian agenda.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14824
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Inequality

Post by Eric the .5b »

So we've gone from the sprawl narrative of people evilly choosing to live outside of big cities to the rent-is-too-damn-high narrative of everybody wanting to live in those big cities.

So what's the step after rent control fails to magically make housing supply in these markets happen? Khrushchyovka?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20108
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Inequality

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Driverless cars might fix LA, or at least considerably ease the pain.

The major metro areas in Texas are still affordable. Yeah, it's Texas, but there is little that isn't absolutely unique to LA or NYC that isn't available in DFW and the thing about poorer people in large metro areas is that they can't really afford all that much of the good life no matter how close it may be to them. For that matter, for overall quality of life places like Austin or Charlottesville, however expensive they may seem compared to most other cities their size, are extremely livable and affordable. Especially younger people without children have, it seems to me, precious little reason not to move rather than complain that this place or that place is too expensive. Unless you're rich, every house or condo you might actually want to live in is "too expensive" when you're a first-time buyer.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25387
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Inequality

Post by JasonL »

There are actually a lot of places like that.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4565
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Inequality

Post by Painboy »


User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7509
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Inequality

Post by Jadagul »

JasonL wrote:
25 Nov 2019, 20:53
Those are all choices. People can make that choice but you don’t get to strike out every lower cost short commute metro in the country and still cry about there being a unique housing shortage.

Too and we all know this, the people who live there absolutely do not believe it should be cheap to live there because that lowers the value they get from living there.

There is nothing to be done about traffic in LA. It’s trash and at capacity and will be forever until the place slides into the ocean.
I mean, yes, everything is a choice on some level.

But if most of the best jobs are in places that are phenomenally expensive to live, that is a problem. It is a problem because people have to play massive amounts of money to live near their jobs if they want a decent job. It's a problem because the best jobs are jobs we _want people doing_, and we're making it way harder for them to do those jobs. And it's just generally inefficient.

(And honestly, your second point is ceasing to be accurate, as the populations involved change. All my friends live in-ish L.A. and also desperately want it to be cheaper.)

Now could people move to cheaper metros? Sure. But in addition to that being a massive move, it almost universally moves you to lower-paying jobs as well as to less exciting neighborhoods.

Post Reply