I’ve been noticing a recurring sentiment among Americans - frustration and disillusionment with the economy. Despite having gone to school, earned a solid education, and worked hard, many feel they can’t get ahead or even come close to the standard of living their parents enjoyed.
I’m curious - is this experience unique to the United States, or do people in other countries share similar frustrations?
Do people in Europe, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere feel like they’re stuck in a rut, unable to achieve financial stability or mobility despite their best efforts?
Are there any countries or regions that seem to be doing things differently, where education and hard work can still lead to a comfortable life?
Let’s hear from our international community - what’s your experience with economic mobility (or lack thereof) in your country?"
the 22 people with 12 digits in their net worth don’t want you to have a spot at the table. they’d sooner kill you than risk letting you have upward mobility
They don’t think about you at all. They just want that net worth and thus power to go up.
At some point our species is going to have to move beyond this rapacious zero-sum logic of “unsticking” economies and “getting ahead” and instead learn how to distribute all that wealth better.
Yup, we can’t continue forever with educated but low-level workers getting 3% raises when the CEO gets a 30% raise.
When the USSR broke up you had Russian cab drivers in NYC with PhDs. I worked with a woman programmer who had a PhD in condensed matter physics from Moscow State U.
American PhD here.
I’ve m only half-joking when I say I’m considering driving a cab somewhere in South America.
You’re only joking because I’m sure you haven’t set foot in South America. US is getting there but it’s still heaps of levels above when it gets to thieving and shooting cab drivers specifically.
Unless you’re Chilean, in case you’re more North American than South American kkkk
Yes, the same stuff is mirrored in the EU. We also had george floyd protests.
Leads me to believe it’s all more a cultural phenomena. Imitation of the popular rethoric.
Or the post wWII baby boom had similar effects around the world creating a generation whose concentration of wealth has had negative impacts on their society
Economies do not stagnate simply because of popular rhetoric. There are real people making real decisions that cause this to happen. Its not fucking vibes based
Take some of it with caution. Powerful forces are amplifying unhappiness.
Some things suck. No area is thriving. Dictators are taking power and there are several distressing wars.
Things have been worse and improved, but it us not a straight line.
Yeah the more I learn history the I feel we are in an imperfect but exceptionally opportune time.
Well put. It’s important to learn from history
Not being coy: can you help me understand the word choice of “opportune”?
I’ve recently become fascinated by history and the underpinned stories that really get to the answers to the WHY questions.
We can organize easier and for things we wouldn’t have even known were happening in the past. The Internet and our understand of how to interact with it is not very mature. That takes generational knowledge imo. Things are more chaotic and unprecedented than ever, and we at least have the opportunity to be more informed than at any other time in history. I think we can learn from the past and even if we fail we’ll hopefully have helped future generations by giving them a good case study.
We are reaching the limits of an “infinite growth” mindset. You can’t make money infinitely, which is why we are witness unprecedented amounts of shrinkflation, price gouging, and of course, enshitification. And housing prices.
An old unattributed saying, “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” Often attributed to Kenneth Boulding but there’s no real sources for that.
The only infinite growth I could think of is just bitcoin and shit. Just dilute gambling.
That’s not infinite. Bitcoin is just one of many participants in the wider currency market. The bet of people speculating on Bitcoin is that its market share in the market will continue to grow. So the absolute upper limit of its valuation is basically that of the global currency market. In more practical/realistic terms, it has technical constraints as-is that limit its use as a day-to-day currency, which limit it to a lower point, since other currencies have to be used for small transactions, and hence, have to take some other portion of the global currency market. And so on.
Not exactly gambling. Rather, the market is trying to anticipate and calculate these shifts in valuation. Individual participants may try to catch it early to get a good deal. Many will fail, including buying at a bad deal. People will get caught up in hype because it’s a novel invention as opposed to some same-for-same replacement. That’s just the price determination mechanism. Currency shifts, and market adjustments in general, are messy. Any time one currency dies, there’s a flight to others.
Disclaimer: I have zero Bitcoin. Also this is just explaining mechanisms, not justifying or supporting them.
The theory behind capitalism doesn’t require infinite growth. A society could have continual “profit” based on the use of renewable resources. The explanation for why we’re constantly expanding our exploitation of the planet is a little more complex than just an inherent trait of the economic system. That’s kind of a nasty oversimplification that people apply.
It’s very much the same in the UK and, from what I hear first hand, also in Germany, Australia and Canada
My rough take:
The industrial revolution never stopped, we are still very much on the trajectory that accelerated in the 18th/19th centuries.
The trend is to concentrate wealth in a production owning class. WWI and WWII were temporary disruptions to this. The post war consensus saw great national projects and investment happen at just the same time that mixed skill labour was in wide demand thanks to technology’s progress at that point. The baby boomers were advantaged by this and ended up with disproportionate ownership of land and production means.
The last 50 years has been a slow return to trend. With production slowly transitioning from manual labour to mental labour to fully automated labour. The freak occurrence that benefitted baby boomers has not repeated.
The trend will continue to devalue the work of most individuals. A small proportion will be able to leverage rapidly advancing technology and take a small stake in the monopoly of the 0.001%. The rest will progressively be priced out of elevating themselves into the middle class. The result being that there becomes a vast underclass characterised by renting, inability to start a family, and insecurity but just enough comfort to prevent rioting. There’ll be a vast range of skill within that class, however effort with make only a token difference to wealth.
One problem with your ending: They can’t stop taking, so they won’t stop short of where people will riot. The rich will never reach such an equilibrium state because one of those psychopaths has to be the emperor and others will always try and usurp the power.
Depends what it is you imagine they’re taking. There comes a point in wealth when you’re not really talking about monetary amounts or assets per se but raw power, measured in whatever abstract units you wish to use. The hyper wealthy care about political and cultural power (a battle very much underway and largely won). They don’t care so much whether the average family has $10 left at the end of the month (or $200 or -$50). The numbers become meaningless. What’s important to the hyperwealthy is that whatever that number is it not be able to purchase strategic land, production, or political power. (Elon wouldn’t care if every worker became a millionaire so long as bread now cost 3 million and property a billion.) Their power is felt in their exclusive access to limited resource (certain beach fronts for example, or a presidents time).
To that end there comes a point where they’re not interested in taking “money” any more, since they already entirely dominate that power dynamic. You could make the number whatever you like they’re still in control. Them “allowing” a very very modest improvement in some living standards doesn’t cost them anything but buys a relative amount of civil order, which is how I suspect this is likely to play out.
The pivot to far right politics over the last 20 years is part of this. When you are artificially keeping a large part of a nation on the brink, and you don’t want them to accrue traditional assets like land or wealth, then a potent replacement is to “pay” them in permission to hate.
History shows that this is a foolish course and it doesn’t last long. But perhaps a few “stable enough” decades is all these materialist hyper barons care about. Wealth and power is to be enjoyed now. There’s no god or heaven only power and the future is someone else’s problem…
You’re missing my point: The point where they stop chasing money, or power, or anything you want to call it, is when they have it ALL. They are not a homogeneous group. More than one want everything, and they will burn the world down to get it. The point where stopping is even forethought will be when the guillotines are at the door or humanity is wiped out.
The rich don’t stay rich by letting other people join their club
Sounds like this whole capitalism thing we were sold was a lie. And most countries adopted it or already had that system before the U.S. showed up. Capitalism requires infinite growth, so we artificial insert these boom bust cycles to make the rich richer, and everybody else can eat a dick.
I think this happens in other countries too. It’s a result of neoliberalism:
- They cut spending on education, social security and publix infrastructure. That makes it harder for the youth to get started.
- They also cut taxes on the wealthy - meaning a lot of the wealth remains with older generations and especially the richest 5%.
- And finally, they pursue union busting, deregulation and globalization. By playing out the interests of workers in different countries (or different ethnicities in the same country) they’re making it harder to collectively bargain for good wages and good working conditions.
Now, I think the US is having it especially bad. In Germany they do regularly cut social security but we have public health insurance (though the rich get to opt out instead of paying their share) and overall a wealth distribution which is not good but also not quite as bad as the US. We also have a very different job market: Due to lack of highly educated workers, it’s easy to get a job and good conditions if you have a good education (which is basically free if you can afford to take the time). And they can’t fire you willy-nilly, this is hugely important for becoming financially stable and feeling safe.
Our main problem economically is the “Debt Brake” - a rule that limits government debt (and thus spending) without accounting for the required infrastructure investments. That doesn’t make any economic sense - anyone would loan money to make an investment if that facilitates economic growth!
Go look at housing prices vs incomes in the USA, then do the same for Canada. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on how people feel up here.
Would youcare to save everybody the trouble and spend a minute just tell us?
Housing is expensive in the USA. It’s even worse in Canada.
Wow, how do any non-homeowners in Canada have roofs over their heads? It pays to be a landlord there apparently.
We have worse wealth inequality than the golden age
The world was experiencing unprecedented economic growth for decades in the run up to the 2008 crash. Sure there were some rocky periods but the general trend was upwards and even in the 70s where there were problems with inflation new technologies were improving people’s living standards all the time.
Now we have growth stagnating; raw materials and international trade becoming more expensive (existing sources becoming depleted, tarrifs); then finally technological gains are happening but for consumers. I’m not sure I’ve seen a big improvement since the original iPhone.
The killer thing I haven’t mentioned yet is overcentralisation of economies in major cities/hubs. If you want the best possible job then you probably need to move to a megacity like London, Paris, New York, Sydney… but then a shortage of new housing in these places has pushed prices into the stratosphere. You better hope you have an economically active partner who has also landed their dream job in megacity! Oh and the inheritance required for a deposit on a flat.
Within countries that last problem can be tackled with better industrial strategies to some extent. Maybe grants and subsidies to open say biotech labs in more affordable parts of the country. In theory since we have increasingly become service based economies, or producers of e-goods like digital copies of videogames, this should also be possible by doubling down on remote jobs as a viable mode of working and possibly offering tax breaks/financial incentives to move to less populated areas. Here in Scotland if you want to be a primary/elementary school teacher on a remote island you can command a salary of ~2x what you would get on the mainland as part of a scheme to entice teachers to live in remote communities.
In my experience, things are a bit similar in Austria, Europe. I had worked an internship in a software development company around 2016, and things were splendid. Everybody was in a good mood, and things seemed to move smoothly. One year later, in 2017, people were holding back a bit more.
I went there again in 2019, and it was okay. In 2020, the business closed.
I think the halt of economic growth is a global phenomenon. Throughout human history, there used to be three big waves of development:
- agricultural (farmers) - biochemical work
- industrial (machine operators and construction) - mechanical work
- information (IT) - electrical/information work
now, it seems to me, the economy is fully developed, and growth slows down. The only growth i foresee in the future will be the settlement of Mars (because mars can theoretically hold up to 1 billion people), and “cleaning up” on Earth (renewable energy).
I was with you up until the Mars bit 😄
Americans are indoctrinated that you have to work for someone else to live, that you have to have a lot of nice things to look successful, that certain jobs are down the chain of the hierarchy, and that there is a hierarchy at all. Temporarily embarrassed millionaires and all that.
