Topic: No the economy isn’t collapsing
Joe Biden started this discussion 1 year ago #120,900
If we were collapsing all Americans wouldn’t have this much money.Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 50 minutes later[^] [v] #1,322,808
Quite honestly, I never bothered to look. I always assumed 'billionaire' meant they hit 1.0004527 billion or something (broken system if even that were the case). Having 100 or 200 billion is absolutely disgusting.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 38 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,816
@previous (B)
> Quite honestly, I never bothered to look. I always assumed 'billionaire' meant they hit 1.0004527 billion or something (broken system if even that were the case). Having 100 or 200 billion is absolutely disgusting.
It must be awesome
> Quite honestly, I never bothered to look. I always assumed 'billionaire' meant they hit 1.0004527 billion or something (broken system if even that were the case). Having 100 or 200 billion is absolutely disgusting.
It must be awesome
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,817
Biden Administration and journalists kept pushing "the economy is great and you're all too stupid to realize" line over and over. Still can't get it out of my head. Don't they have PR people to stop them?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 40 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,820
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 33 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,824
@1,322,808 (B)
They don't "have" hundreds of billions of dollars. They hold partial ownership of companies that stock market participants greatly value. Shares in companies aren't dollars.
They don't "have" hundreds of billions of dollars. They hold partial ownership of companies that stock market participants greatly value. Shares in companies aren't dollars.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,825
@1,322,808 (B)
> Quite honestly, I never bothered to look. I always assumed 'billionaire' meant they hit 1.0004527 billion or something (broken system if even that were the case). Having 100 or 200 billion is absolutely disgusting.
One look at Bill Gates for example - Billions and Billions being used to save children God is putting to death with malnutrition.
> Quite honestly, I never bothered to look. I always assumed 'billionaire' meant they hit 1.0004527 billion or something (broken system if even that were the case). Having 100 or 200 billion is absolutely disgusting.
One look at Bill Gates for example - Billions and Billions being used to save children God is putting to death with malnutrition.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,826
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,827
@1,322,820 (E)
90% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population. Stocks go up when those companies can pay less to their workers. The majority are getting screwed, and you're talking about how the minority is getting rich.
90% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population. Stocks go up when those companies can pay less to their workers. The majority are getting screwed, and you're talking about how the minority is getting rich.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,829
@previous (D)
hes a moran
tx economy still overheated. i think cause brandons doing too much oil drilling. what a douche. impeach.
hes a moran
tx economy still overheated. i think cause brandons doing too much oil drilling. what a douche. impeach.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,830
@1,322,827 (D)
> Stocks go up when those companies can pay less to their workers.
Lots n Lots of Tech and other companies offer stock options to employees. Tech companies offer huge salaries to quality employees.
I never once felt I was being paid less then I was worth. Once when young and dumb, I even told HR when they made me an offer and I said THAT MUCH!
> Stocks go up when those companies can pay less to their workers.
Lots n Lots of Tech and other companies offer stock options to employees. Tech companies offer huge salaries to quality employees.
I never once felt I was being paid less then I was worth. Once when young and dumb, I even told HR when they made me an offer and I said THAT MUCH!
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,831
@1,322,829 (H)
Oil is a big part of the economy, but most workers have less purchasing power despite the industries doing well. Expanding drilling isn't going to help most people if the wealth is all funneled to a small group of shareholders and executives.
Leftists populists can sell degrowth because if you match it with redistribution the average person will be richer.
Oil is a big part of the economy, but most workers have less purchasing power despite the industries doing well. Expanding drilling isn't going to help most people if the wealth is all funneled to a small group of shareholders and executives.
Leftists populists can sell degrowth because if you match it with redistribution the average person will be richer.
Anonymous D double-posted this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,832
@1,322,830 (E)
> Lots n Lots of Tech and other companies offer stock options to employees. Tech companies offer huge salaries to quality employees.
Tech workers make up the top decile mentioned before.
> Lots n Lots of Tech and other companies offer stock options to employees. Tech companies offer huge salaries to quality employees.
Tech workers make up the top decile mentioned before.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,845
@1,322,830 (E)
not if yr like a janitor. they laid a bunch off and those make up some of the homeless living in sfs shadows. good job!
@1,322,831 (D)
i agree. nationalize
not if yr like a janitor. they laid a bunch off and those make up some of the homeless living in sfs shadows. good job!
@1,322,831 (D)
i agree. nationalize
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,850
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,852
@1,322,845 (H)
> not if yr like a janitor. they laid a bunch off and those make up some of the homeless living in sfs shadows. good job!
Usually that work is done by contract so none of those doing that work actually work for the company.
> not if yr like a janitor. they laid a bunch off and those make up some of the homeless living in sfs shadows. good job!
Usually that work is done by contract so none of those doing that work actually work for the company.
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,853
oh it's always collapsing isn't it
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,874
If the economy didn't burn down our house during covid lockdowns, when is it gonna burn down our house? Is it just suddenly going to burn it down because it randomly feels like it? The economy is a tricky guy after all
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 30 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,881
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,889
@1,322,874 (K)
feds are sorta keeping it at bay for now by printing irresponsible amounts of money. its not going to work indefintely and you can absolutely see the strategy failing in slo-mo, but the roof probably has a half-decade or two before it actually collapses.
feds are sorta keeping it at bay for now by printing irresponsible amounts of money. its not going to work indefintely and you can absolutely see the strategy failing in slo-mo, but the roof probably has a half-decade or two before it actually collapses.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,892
@previous (L)
Is it possible the economy just forgets about the lockdowns after a year or two more? There's ways to distract
Is it possible the economy just forgets about the lockdowns after a year or two more? There's ways to distract
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 20 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,894
@previous (K)
Maybe there's some kind of fiscal fluffy ball on a string on a stick we can dangle in front of it...
Maybe there's some kind of fiscal fluffy ball on a string on a stick we can dangle in front of it...
Anonymous I double-posted this 1 year ago, 39 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,895
Hey, I have an idea! What about a big war?
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 59 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,899
@previous (I)
Oh come on, why can't we be more creative. Let's just give Africa portable nuclear power plants and help them create a massive water filter to pump clean water into the middle of it. I'm telling you, the economy would be totally captivated by that. The new and huge market would literally make him cum.
Oh come on, why can't we be more creative. Let's just give Africa portable nuclear power plants and help them create a massive water filter to pump clean water into the middle of it. I'm telling you, the economy would be totally captivated by that. The new and huge market would literally make him cum.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,901
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,902
@1,322,827 (D)
> 90% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population. Stocks go up when those companies can pay less to their workers. The majority are getting screwed, and you're talking about how the minority is getting rich.
I guess I'm in that 10% then. And all of my investments have made really nice gains over the last 2 years. People who don't invest money and then cries poor mouth are the uneducated fools.
> 90% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population. Stocks go up when those companies can pay less to their workers. The majority are getting screwed, and you're talking about how the minority is getting rich.
I guess I'm in that 10% then. And all of my investments have made really nice gains over the last 2 years. People who don't invest money and then cries poor mouth are the uneducated fools.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 13 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,932
@previous (M)
Anyone can put $1 into stocks from an app, and anyone can sign up for their employers 401k. It doesn't matter because for the average person, that's a meager savings rate and it will still be true that 90% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population.
Stocks are up because companies can pay workers very little. The average person is going to feel like the economy is doing poorly, even when stocks are up, if the wages they get to buy those stocks in the first place are low.
There are many ways of measuring the financial well-being of the average person, and stocks is not one of them. If workers have less disposable income, telling them they're wrong and using a metric that is better for 10% of the population is going to make the administration look like it's gaslighting the majority because it is.
High stock prices result from low wages.
Low wages = less money to buy stocks = less profit when stocks go up.
Anyone can put $1 into stocks from an app, and anyone can sign up for their employers 401k. It doesn't matter because for the average person, that's a meager savings rate and it will still be true that 90% of stocks are owned by 10% of the population.
Stocks are up because companies can pay workers very little. The average person is going to feel like the economy is doing poorly, even when stocks are up, if the wages they get to buy those stocks in the first place are low.
There are many ways of measuring the financial well-being of the average person, and stocks is not one of them. If workers have less disposable income, telling them they're wrong and using a metric that is better for 10% of the population is going to make the administration look like it's gaslighting the majority because it is.
High stock prices result from low wages.
Low wages = less money to buy stocks = less profit when stocks go up.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,936
@previous (D)
You forgot the part where the companies have to convince other companies or people to buy their goods or services. I don't think you have a very strong grasp on how the economy works if you've overlooked such a vital aspect of the market.
You forgot the part where the companies have to convince other companies or people to buy their goods or services. I don't think you have a very strong grasp on how the economy works if you've overlooked such a vital aspect of the market.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,937
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,950
@1,322,936 (F)
> You forgot the part where the companies have to convince other companies or people to buy their goods or services.
Relevance? Never claimed they forced people to do business with them.
The question is whether corporate profits are good for the average person. They aren't, those profits are up because the employee is making less and the customer is paying more.
@previous (E)
Those aren't the only two options.
> You forgot the part where the companies have to convince other companies or people to buy their goods or services.
Relevance? Never claimed they forced people to do business with them.
The question is whether corporate profits are good for the average person. They aren't, those profits are up because the employee is making less and the customer is paying more.
@previous (E)
Those aren't the only two options.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,951
@previous (D)
> They aren't, those profits are up because the employee is making less and the customer is paying more.
Employees make less only because they chose to slack off in school. Without a worthwhile education one cannot expect to earn very much. They could take up a trade like plumbing or electrical. Working for a company they are just worker bees.
> They aren't, those profits are up because the employee is making less and the customer is paying more.
Employees make less only because they chose to slack off in school. Without a worthwhile education one cannot expect to earn very much. They could take up a trade like plumbing or electrical. Working for a company they are just worker bees.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,953
@previous (E)
Nice hypothesis, but younger generations have more education and less wealth than previous generations.
Nice hypothesis, but younger generations have more education and less wealth than previous generations.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,958
@previous (D)
As someone who works in high paying tech sector - I am surrounded by people living in larger houses with better cars than parents.
Of course I only see people with excess of $$ because they worked for it and continue to work for it. They are NOT going to end up just on Social Security.
Need to say I do get Social Security and still work because I so enjoy the work. Turned a hobby into a high paying job.
As someone who works in high paying tech sector - I am surrounded by people living in larger houses with better cars than parents.
Of course I only see people with excess of $$ because they worked for it and continue to work for it. They are NOT going to end up just on Social Security.
Need to say I do get Social Security and still work because I so enjoy the work. Turned a hobby into a high paying job.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,322,964
@1,322,953 (D)
> Nice hypothesis, but younger generations have more education and less wealth than previous generations.
That's a choice every generation has to make for themselves. Make better choices.
> Nice hypothesis, but younger generations have more education and less wealth than previous generations.
That's a choice every generation has to make for themselves. Make better choices.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,028
@1,322,953 (D)
This is generally speaking not true, and to the extent it is true, most of the wealth the previous generation has will be passed down to the next through inheritances anyway, same as always.
This is generally speaking not true, and to the extent it is true, most of the wealth the previous generation has will be passed down to the next through inheritances anyway, same as always.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,031
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)Federal Reserve deposit data shows younger generations have significantly less wealth compared to previous generations at the same age
Inheritance won't fix it if the healthcare industry sucks it up in their final years, or if billionaires consolidate wealth that was more evenly distributed in previous generations.