Inflation, real income, and politics Moved from: Interesting Articles Relating to EVs

[RonDean]

I stopped reading all the posts in this thread some time ago. Especially the long ones that seem to be more about what people "should" have done but very many didn't or couldn't. History is always 20/20 and spending time on past mistakes, or in some cases - successes, seems like a waste of time to me. Now if this were a HS or college age forum for people young enough to put such advice into action, I might have a different perspective. But I think most of us are a bit past that age group.

If the discussion was more generally about government policies that impacts people now experiencing difficulties, then advice on what we should have done is still less than useful. As far as "playing the victim card," we are all victims or beneficiaries of those things beyond our control. It is true that everything else is our own responsibility to navigate within the rules and conditions in which we find ourselves. But still, after the fact advice is not only not helpful, but it also becomes irritating upon repetition.

 

[mpruet]

I stopped reading all the posts in this thread some time ago. Especially the long ones that seem to be more about what people "should" have done but very many didn't or couldn't. History is always 20/20 and spending time on past mistakes, or in some cases - successes, seems like a waste of time to me. Now if this were a HS or college age forum for people young enough to put such advice into action, I might have a different perspective. But I think most of us are a bit past that age group.

If the discussion was more generally about government policies that impacts people now experiencing difficulties, then advice on what we should have done is still less than useful. As far as "playing the victim card," we are all victims or beneficiaries of those things beyond our control. It is true that everything else is our own responsibility to navigate within the rules and conditions in which we find ourselves. But still, after the fact advice is not only not helpful, but it also becomes irritating upon repetition.

Ron, it’s only “after the fact” if you chose to make it “after the fact”, just as you’re only a victim if you chose to be a victim.

Yes anyone may have limited means, just as we all have limited means. But we are still in control of how we use what means we have. No one makes you spend more than you have. You chose how you get to live and how to spend (or not spend) your resources.

It’s true that there are always things outside of our control which might affect us. But our response to that is always under our control. The only thing that you (or I… or anyone) does not have control over is the past. We can’t do anything about that. But what anyone, yourself as well as myself has 100% control over is how we use the time and resources that we have left.

The reason that I posted on this thread is because I only saw posts stating They should do …. Or the government should do …. Or my boss should so …. I never saw any post saying ‘I’ should do XYZ to improve my lot. It was always someone or something else that controlled me. That kind of mindset will not improve anyone’s situation.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^the point is many or most people are not benefiting enough from the present situation they are in to have the basic needs they have when they reach old age. The mass majority of people in this country seem to be not able to do the things they need to do prior to getting elderly and that needs to be addressed. The reasons for this failure vary but basically large numbers of people are not accruing enough money during their working years to meet basic needs in the years they no longer work or are able to work. Each individual has different needs to meet in order to be able to live a productive life. Working to enable people to meet those needs is the goal of society and our government should be one of the tools society uses to do that in my opinion. All individuals would be successful in doing so in a perfect world but because there is no perfect world those that are unsuccessful need to be helped in order for those that do to continue to improve the society’s living standards, benefiting everyone. The idea that some excel at the cost of others is fine until that cost exceeds what it takes for that person to live a productive life and therefore become a burden on society causing the society to fail. Again just an opinion, united we stand, divided we fall is more than a saying.

 

[mpruet]

^^^the point is many or most people are not benefiting enough from the present situation they are in to have the basic needs they have when they reach old age. The mass majority of people in this country seem to be not able to do the things they need to do prior to getting elderly and that needs to be addressed. The reasons for this failure vary but basically large numbers of people are not accruing enough money during their working years to meet basic needs in the years they no longer work or are able to work. Each individual has different needs to meet in order to be able to live a productive life. Working to enable people to meet those needs is the goal of society and our government should be one of the tools society uses to do that in my opinion. All individuals would be successful in doing so in a perfect world but because there is no perfect world those that are unsuccessful need to be helped in order for those that do to continue to improve the society’s living standards, benefiting everyone. The idea that some excel at the cost of others is fine until that cost exceeds what it takes for that person to live a productive life and therefore become a burden on society causing the society to fail.

That’s valid, but no one is forcing anyone to remain in any job where they are not making enough. And no one is forcing anyone to live in an area where it’s nearly impossible to afford a living such as New York or San Francisco.

 

[RonDean]

Ron, it’s only “after the fact” if you chose to make it “after the fact”, just as you’re only a victim if you chose to be a victim.

Yes anyone may have limited means, just as we all have limited means. But we are still in control of how we use what means we have. No one makes you spend more than you have. You chose how you get to live and how to spend (or not spend) your resources.

It’s true that there are always things outside of our control which might affect us. But our response to that is always under our control. The only thing that you (or I… or anyone) does not have control over is the past. We can’t do anything about that. But what anyone, yourself as well as myself has 100% control over is how we use the time and resources that we have left.

The reason that I posted on this thread is because I only saw posts stating They should do …. Or the government should do …. Or my boss should so …. I never saw any post saying ‘I’ should do XYZ to improve my lot. It was always someone or something else that controlled me. That kind of mindset will not improve anyone’s situation.

And your point is What? As far as what I have seen, there have been a lot of your posts on what we should have done and nothing about what IS.

I could be wrong, but I think most people on this forum are now retired and collecting SS. Telling us what we should have done is wasted effort on your part and will not make for an enjoyable discussion for any of us. You have stated (somewhere) that SS was not originally intended as a sole retirement package. My research says it WAS intended as a "safety net" and to provide for the "basic" financial needs of individuals and families. That may mean something else to you, but to me that means if you have other investments - great! If not, then SS by itself should at least allow us to live somewhere above the homelessness line or sitting in the cold and dark eating cat food.

At this point I simply don't care to listen to sermons about what I "should" have done, regardless of how much control I may have or not had over the causes. As said before, history is always 20/20. That said, I'll now go back to skipping posts that do not relate to the realities I see.

 

[mpruet]

And your point is What? As far as what I have seen, there have been a lot of your posts on what we should have done and nothing about what IS.

I could be wrong, but I think most people on this forum are now retired and collecting SS. Telling us what we should have done is wasted effort on your part and will not make for an enjoyable discussion for any of us. You have stated (somewhere) that SS was not originally intended as a sole retirement package. My research says it WAS intended as a "safety net" and to provide for the "basic" financial needs of individuals and families. That may mean something else to you, but to me that means if you have other investments - great! If not, then SS by itself should at least allow us to live somewhere above the homelessness line or sitting in the cold and dark eating cat food.

At this point I simply don't care to listen to sermons about what I "should" have done, regardless of how much control I may have or not had over the causes. As said before, history is always 20/20. That said, I'll now go back to skipping posts that do not relate to the realities I see.

OK - define “basic” financial needs. Phone? - nope, internet? - nope, vehicle maintenance? - nope. Replacing a vehicle? - nope. TV? - nope. …

Also don’t forget that when implemented, homes were totally paid for by the time you were 60. Otherwise you’d go live with the children or relatives, or with a room mate. It was designed to prevent starvation - not much more. It wasn’t until much later that medicare was implemented to provide some heath coverage.

 

[mpruet]

And your point is What? As far as what I have seen, there have been a lot of your posts on what we should have done and nothing about what IS.

I could be wrong, but I think most people on this forum are now retired and collecting SS. Telling us what we should have done is wasted effort on your part and will not make for an enjoyable discussion for any of us. You have stated (somewhere) that SS was not originally intended as a sole retirement package. My research says it WAS intended as a "safety net" and to provide for the "basic" financial needs of individuals and families. That may mean something else to you, but to me that means if you have other investments - great! If not, then SS by itself should at least allow us to live somewhere above the homelessness line or sitting in the cold and dark eating cat food.

At this point I simply don't care to listen to sermons about what I "should" have done, regardless of how much control I may have or not had over the causes. As said before, history is always 20/20. That said, I'll now go back to skipping posts that do not relate to the realities I see.

Oh yes, and I have posted about IS. I pointed out that a lot of people of little means frequent Mac Donalds and that a Big Mac meal cost approximately 4 times as much as making it yourself. And I pointed out that anyone would be making a poor decision if they didn’t have an emergency fund to cover the things out of their control, but which would happen. These are just a couple of IS and not WAS items.

 

[RonDean]

Oh yes, and I have posted about IS. I pointed out that a lot of people of little means frequent Mac Donalds and that a Big Mac meal cost approximately 4 times as much as making it yourself. And I pointed out that anyone would be making a poor decision if they didn’t have an emergency fund to cover the things out of their control, but which would happen. These are just a couple of IS and not WAS items.

OK, now I can somewhat relate to this discussion. I remember my grandmother describing raising a family through the Great Depression and for many people SS became a godsend. You are correct that providing for cell phones and McD was not even considered. Probably not even the landlines that actually existed then. But times have changed. What was basic then and what is basic now might actually have progressed a little bit.

AND I think this discussion has occasionally included ideas of how to make things better, not just how SS and the economy was designed to operate in 1935.

 

[Happy Camper]

If anyone here is relying on the government changing something to significantly change their situation within the next ten years, you'll probably be disappointed.

But just about everyone can do something to help themselves today financially. This might be:
Being more frugal
Finding a small income source
Checking the unclaimed money websites
Learning a new skill they might use to make something others would buy.
Etc

Today might not be the day that effort turns into money. But starting today makes tomorrows to come a better place to live.

Simple things can turn into money. More in depth skills as well.

My dad learned to paint much later in life. Became decent at it. One day I noticed he had a bunch of rocks on the table and asked him about it. He was painting images on the rocks and people were buying them. It wasn't a huge income, but it was something.

Maki has her Etsy business making those extremely cute buildings.

Ravella makes a mean sourdough from all accounts. She might be able to sell that.

Many of you have skills learned over time. Just because you're older didn't mean you can use some of them, or learn new ones that make more sense at this stage of your life.

If it's an extra $20 or so a week it adds up. If it's more then great.

Helping someone will a skill you know doesn't cost you, as it's not a physical product.

Heck, you can do those surveys and make money.

All of it depends on what your expectations are. If the juice ain't worth the squeeze, it ain't. That's a personal decision. Just don't blame the farmer.

 

[RonDean]

If anyone here is relying on the government changing something to significantly change their situation within the next ten years, you'll probably be disappointed.

But just about everyone can do something to help themselves today financially. This might be:
Being more frugal
Finding a small income source
Checking the unclaimed money websites
Learning a new skill they might use to make something others would buy.
Etc

Today might not be the day that effort turns into money. But starting today makes tomorrows to come a better place to live.

Simple things can turn into money. More in depth skills as well.

My dad learned to paint much later in life. Became decent at it. One day I noticed he had a bunch of rocks on the table and asked him about it. He was painting images on the rocks and people were buying them. It wasn't a huge income, but it was something.

Maki has her Etsy business making those extremely cute buildings.

Ravella makes a mean sourdough from all accounts. She might be able to sell that.

Many of you have skills learned over time. Just because you're older didn't mean you can use some of them, or learn new ones that make more sense at this stage of your life.

If it's an extra $20 or so a week it adds up. If it's more then great.

Helping someone will a skill you know doesn't cost you, as it's not a physical product.

Heck, you can do those surveys and make money.

All of it depends on what your expectations are. If the juice ain't worth the squeeze, it ain't. That's a personal decision. Just don't blame the farmer.

Happy, Now that is a useful post!!!

I agree, both on the likelihood of meaningful government change (although I still think it is needed) AND increasing one's income through individual efforts. You omitted writing skills that are available to nomads. For example, https://writers.work/qualify (Note: I just picked this one as an example. I do not know enough to recommend it.) Based on some of the longer posts here, there are obviously some writing skills present on this forum.

And there are many other on-line possibilities. I've known people that do crafty thingees (not me) for flea markets and plan their travel based on those. Obviously, this would have to be something someone could build within the confines of their rigs. And so forth... Certainly a more positive endeavor than just bitching about the bad things we all must endure. Although I'll still reserve my right to do so occasionally.

 

[rruff]

....are refusing to face the fact that each person is responsible for what wealth he obtains...

How about we forget about how to obtain wealth, and instead focus what generates it? In other words *not* how you you can get a bigger slice of the pie into your account, but how is the pie made larger?

What is wealth as far as the country is concerned, and how/why does it increase... or not?

 

[mpruet]

How about we forget about how to obtain wealth, and instead focus what generates it? In other words *not* how you you can get a bigger slice of the pie into your account, but how is the pie made larger?

What is wealth as far as the country is concerned, and how/why does it increase... or not?

I’ve always considered economy and wealth to be based not so much on the possession of money, but rather on the flow of money. Think about it. A $100 sitting in a drawer is only worth $100. But if that $100 is used to pay a plumber, who then uses it to purchase some slacks from a merchant, who then uses it to pay an electrician, who then uses it to buy some bread from a baker, who then uses it to buy some flour from a store, which then uses it to purchase flour from a farmer, who then uses it to buy seeds, etc. Well, then that $100 has in effect become worth much more than just $100, it could easily end up being worth several thousands of dollars. I think that’s also why the depression was so bad. There really wasn’t any less money, but because of fear, the flow of money slowed down, especially when the banks started failing.

 

[Happy Camper]

Since we have $100k ($98k actually) worth of debt for every citizen on the government level in the USA, I would imagine wealth means something different in the country level.

 

[rruff]

I’ve always considered economy and wealth to be based not so much on the possession of money, but rather on the flow of money. Think about it.

Yes, I've thought about it. And no, it isn't about money at all.

There was a huge change about 200 years ago. What was it?

 

[mpruet]

Yes, I've thought about it. And no, it isn't about money at all.

There was a huge change about 200 years ago. What was it?

The rise of capitalism, the dying of the medieval hierarchy systems, the Industrial Revolution. The gradual demise of basing money on gold or silver, the growth of consumerism…. All of these factors increased the flow of money, which stimulated the production of stuff.

Of course the chart is a bit misleading when productively drastically dropped, for instance, during the 1930s as money flow slowed down and consumerism lagged. The chart glosses over those events.

 

[rruff]

The rise of capitalism, the dying of the medieval hierarchy systems, the Industrial Revolution. The gradual demise of basing money on gold or silver, the growth of consumerism…. All of these factors increased the flow of money, which stimulated the production of stuff.

Of course the chart is a bit misleading when productively drastically dropped, for instance, during the 1930s as money flow slowed down and consumerism lagged. The chart glosses over those events.

You are getting closer. The industrial revolution and mass production were the main thing. Medieval systems had to die, because they become inefficient. Gold was still standard for currency deep into last century; really only ended in the 1970s. And capitalism has been around for a very long time, and in its "pure" form it's never been successful; never really been tried... though capitalism with intelligent modifications and regulations, as well as democracy and human rights, proved to be the most efficient compliments to industrialization, and the steady increase in productivity. Let's forget "increasing the flow of money" for the moment and see if we have any use for it.

The things that really got the ball rolling were science, invention, and its application... and support for this activity. Primarily how to get things done with less human labor. Prior to the industrial revolution, the wealthy owned slaves, serfs, peasants, and the land that they worked on, and they were able to sell whatever these produced for more than it cost to keep them alive... profit. But it was quite inefficient since the cost of keeping people alive for manual labor was pretty high, compared to what they could produce. Consequently the ratio of poor people working to "the rest of the population" was high. And the overall standard of living very limited. There was no incentive to improve the living standard of the poor, since this could only come directly out of the owner's profits. And those profits were not only spent on luxuries, they were also necessary to support armies and fight wars. For a very long time, survival of any system has depended on how much can be afforded for defense and fighting battles.

With the invention and application of machines and energy sources, we were able to produce and do things with much less aggregate man-hrs of work, thus lowering the real cost. One significant "growing pain" though, was that the owners of capital still treated the workers as they did before, creating an impasse. Much greater production was possible, but only the other wealthy could afford to buy. Marx correctly stated that pure capitalism would self-destruct. That was the main issue he had with it. How was this resolved?

 

[rockloper]

Allow me to explain why none of this will actually happen properly or in a constructive manner.

We, as a society, can no longer agree to disagree. Anyone that thinks differently is wrong and needs to be treated like the enemy, obviously. This is proven out by our politicians, who no longer can compromise on anything without threat from their own party. So the other party and everyone in it is a "bad person" and doesn't care about whatever issue. The media pushes the negative polarizing narrative to get views, clicks, and sell advertising.

I think it's very safe to say that most on this forum are of an age when crossing the aisle and making deals that benefited both sides was more likely. No one got everything they wanted, but things moved forward as a whole. That time has passed us by. I'm hopeful for it's return, but we'll see.

Until we get rid of the radical elements in our society we should not just agree to disagree. When someone is pushing an anti-democracy agenda I'm not about to complacently say "oh that's ok we'll just agree to disagree'. There are few radicals who have taken over the usual process to get things done. A prime example is the latest dysfunction on border security.

 

[mpruet]

Yea, but simply manufacturing in itself will lead to over stocked inventory if there is no means to consume those goods. So I still consider the flow as being a critical part of the picture. As far as gold (or more really silver), it did tend to limit the availability of whatever the exchange medium was, unless there was a constant fluctuation of the medium/gold(silver) ratios. That’s one of the reasons that government tender came off and then back on those standards so many time during the 1800s/1900s/.

As for serfdom/slavery, the peasants started gaining power as a result of the plagues in Europe. That’s when the first part of the demise of the old order started and the merchant class started appearing. Slavery is a bit of an odd-ball because it was really the Industrial Revolution that caused slavery to flourish up to the mid 1800s with the invention of the cotton gin and more efficient machinery to weave cloth. Of course it would have eventually lost out as more mechanical farm equipment appeared. And yes capitalism appeared much earlier (consider the Tulip Bubble), but it wasn’t well regulated until more recently, eventhough there are still scams.

 

[Happy Camper]

Until we get rid of the radical elements in our society we should not just agree to disagree. When someone is pushing an anti-democracy agenda I'm not about to complacently say "oh that's ok we'll just agree to disagree'. There are few radicals who have taken over the usual process to get things done. A prime example is the latest dysfunction on border security.

We need to learn how to disagree civilly, again. Both sides are much farther to the edges then I would like, and act like they have all the answers and the opposing side has none. Both sides aren't really pushing a democratic agenda as we've known it over the decades. To them compromise is death.

So yeah, I'd rather take the 15% at each edge of the left and right and cut it away.

Then we could have normal thinking humans get something accomplished. As it is. They are mostly acting like children. And not well behaved ones at that.

 

[user 22017]

Of course the chart is a bit misleading when productively drastically dropped, for instance, during the 1930s as money flow slowed down and consumerism lagged. The chart glosses over those events.

Why did consumerism lag? Because companies paid such low wages the workers could not purchase the goods they were producing. (It was on a test about the Great Depression )

Low wages were one of the main causes of the Great Depression.