• eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s a great economy if you’re already rich.

      Since all elected officials are either rich or grabbing everything they can to become so, they can’t understand what it’s like for people on minimum wage or a fixed income.

      We need more attention on stats like “what percentage of people have zero savings”, “what percentage of the median worker’s income is consumed by basic expenses”, “how many people didn’t eat yesterday”…

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Hey NBC, an economy that’s not providing the basic necessities for working families is not a strong economy. No matter what the pretty graph says.

    • 1847953620@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      iT’s NoT a ReCeSsIoN (because we don’t like you having a word to call it, so we’re the ones who get to redefine it however we wish)

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        The definition wasn’t redefined. You just always heard the rule of thumb and thought that was actually the definition. Like, let’s be honest here, have you ever even taken an economics class outside of HS? When you learned how it’s actually determined, instead of thinking “I’ve learned some nuance and I will incorporate this into my future conclusions” you rejected it and concocted some conspiracy to explain it.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          But even in academic circles it is an arbitrary definition that is usually agreed upon by consensus. It’s holistic, not a firm science and it’s like that because economics is not actually about actual mathematics but is about humanity studies and trying to predict the emotional feelings of people with money to spend. There is statistical stuff you can use to help but a farmer in 1875 has done better on predicting markets than most modern degree holders.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s not arbitrary. It’s just that, as you note, a nuanced question without a simple answer. The “two quarters” thing is just something that we tend to see with every recession. But there are a lot of other things we tend to see too: unemployment rising, consumer spending retracting, income dropping, industrial output retracting… and we didn’t see any of the other factors that we’ve seen previously.

            It would have been one of the weirdest “recessions” we’ve ever seen, that bucked numerous other recession indicators. . .all in favor of two quarters of negative GDP growth. How does that make any sense?

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Expecting everything to be the same is silly. History rhymes, not repeats, so whatever this period could be called is hard to say. But consumer spending is down. Sorta. People are spending less now but the market now is back to “stable”. There is over employment from income not raising to match inflation so it’s like people got pay cuts. Industries are also rapidly declaring bankruptcy.

              It’s weird now. Sorta like a Frankenstein recession one that is not and is still shambling but seems to be held together by stitches and random corpses thrown together.

              This period will definitely be talked about in economics because it’s certainly something new that couldn’t have existed before without the very global economy. Maybe it will turn more traditional or go back to normal but it’s definitely not a full well and fine economy at the moment.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I absolutely agree that it’s weird and it’s not fine right now. All I responded to was the oft-repeated and false claim that they changed the definition of recession, and then attributed that to some conspiracy theory to silence them.

                It will absolutely be talked about, but just as likely as how it was a huge win for the fed if the soft landing happens, and that appears more and more likely at this point.

                • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I guess that is fair. I’m just not that against it when people think it feels like a recession to them. The brunt of this soft landing is not even. It really does feel like it for a lot of lower class people being laid off or struggling to find work. I know of whole warehouses that have closed up in the last year or 2.

                  So for them… They are in a recession. My point is that it’s a term that has no solid definition. It’s truly arbitrary to the person who is making the claim and on a global level it might not be happening but in smaller sectors it feels like hell.

                  But that person did say that they changed the definition when it really just doesn’t have one other than agreed idea of what it should look like. And based on what we all classically think of as a recession this ain’t it. And thinking it’s a conspiracy against us and not just wealth classes being completely unsynced is a bit silly, even if I want them to use their voice to complain.

                • 1847953620@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I’m not saying “they changed the definition”. I’m saying “too many things about the way this term is gatekept from general use are flawed, and done for political gain sometimes, the average discussion of what is happening right now being one of them”. It depends on the context whether a more academic definition standard should be expected, and even then it’s not as straightforward as whoever is trying to shut down its use likes to pretend, and so perhaps a less-important hill to die on than whatever discussion is happening at that point in time."

    • sawdustprophet@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I remember reading another factor is that food which people donate is often expired, nearly expired, or undesirable and unlikely to be used before it expires, so often ends up getting thrown away anyway.

  • BandDad@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    11 months ago

    In a household of four with two full time incomes (both teachers, so take that with a grain of salt), we are at the point that the food budget is the only thing left to cut. We have canceled any subscriptions, cut all other spending, and often skip lunch/breakfast or eat Ramen noodles to save the bulk of our money for the kids and feed them better. I’m sick of beans and rice, BTW. Due to the nature of our jobs and the outside of school hours (which we are compensated for), side hustle is not an option. We would like to actually be present and part of our kids lives. I keep getting told “it gets better,” but the stress of making the bills and feeding the family is relentless, and that says a lot since we are way more fortunate than most. We need change.

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      “It gets better” is just a bullshit comment to keep you complacent. It doesn’t get better unless we make it better.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      two full time incomes (both teachers, so take that with a grain of salt)

      Sorry but they counts as one income tops. It’s shameful how little teachers are paid. I hope you and your family find a better situation somehow.

    • Skeezix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      There is often change. But it never gets better. It has never gotten better and it never will.

      • vivadanang@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        factually inaccurate. look man, I’m a cynic, but saying the New Deal didn’t improve people’s lives is bullshit.

      • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Almost everything is better for almost everybody now compared to 100 years ago. It obviously requires systematic efforts and economic growth, but it’s just as obviously possible.

  • brothershamus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    11 months ago

    You mean how can some people barely survive while others have millions or even, wtf, billions? NBCnews? That’s your question?

    Boy that’s a question right there NBCnews. Yessir a real head-scratcher. Hmm! Boy howdy, the mind reels at what could be the cause of such a huge imbalance in our society. I suppose we’ll just never FUCKING KNOW.

  • Wooster@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Utilities have also been on the rise, and this year Ortigoza isn’t planning on turning on the home’s heater, even with temperatures dipping into the 30s at night. Instead, she plans to wear extra clothes around the house and bundle her daughter in blankets.

    I just want to say… Don’t do that.

    If you want burst water pipes, then that is how you do it.

    Instead, let your house drop to uncomfortably cold temperatures, but with still a buffer above freezing. The thermostat is only accurate for wherever it’s placed in the house. It’s not able to tell you what temperature your pipes are at the distant ends of the house.

    If you’re going to turn the heat off at below freezing, then you need to empty your pipes first, and no one is going to do that.

    But yeah… I felt I needed to get that out of the way first.

    Anyway, wages and unemployment are getting ‘better’, but that means very little if it’s still not a living wage.

  • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    11 months ago

    Same reason I hate it when the housing market is described at “strong” in Australia? In what way? Is the market providing housing for all who need it? No?

    Then it’s weak and I’ll have none of this “strong” housing market bullshit.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The housing market being strong means homes are selling. Homes selling means prices rising.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s not a euphemism, you’re just not the person benefiting from the strong market because you are not currently a homeowner.

          • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s not benefitting anyone who buys a house (me included…) to live in either, only those who will sell for a profit.

            We’re tying up money where it provides no value beyond the actual utility of the house (what it costs to build, maintain, the location etc).

            It would be much better if that money were invested in businesses, which actually provide value to society.

            Instead, we’re stuck with literal decades of debt, or stupidly high rent.

            It abosultely is a euphemism for the vast majority (including home owners).

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              It’s not a euphemism because it is describing actual, literal market conditions. You won’t benefit from every strong market. Business owners do not benefit from a strong labor market. Freight brokers do not benefit from a strong driver market.

              Tight and loose markets are a pretty basic concept man. There’s no language wizardry going on here.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s a strong hoarding economy, the rich and ultra-rich are hoarding wealth and companies are raising prices for everyone else to feed their insatiable demands for profit. There’s nothing strong about this economy for the majority of people.

  • quams69@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The economy isn’t strong, for one. Rich people getting richer isn’t indicative of a healthy economy. The entire working class can barely afford their god damned groceries, 40 hours a week isn’t even enough to live on for most people.

    The economy is dogshit right now. Fuck these corpo ghouls.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      The economy is dogshit right now.

      It’s not so much the economy that’s dog shit as it is the policies regulating the economy that are dog shit. Better redistribution of wealth would go a long way to alleviate the economic inequality of the US economy.

      Of course, that would require implementing policies that many, especially conservatives, are not willing to implement.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Good economy: Rich people get much richer. Poor people stay poor despite the good economy.

    Bad economy: Poor people pay to keep rich people rich, despite the bad economy.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    As we all know, the word “economy” means “rich people’s yachts”.

  • trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    Anyone saying the ‘economy is strong’ doesn’t know jack shit about economics let alone macroeconomics.

    • ultranaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s relatively strong given all the crap that’s happened in recent years. Inflation is finally down, unemployment remains low, median wages have grown faster than inflation, etc. Things aren’t great for a lot of people obviously, but shit could easily be so much worse.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    We were over at my mother’s yesterday and we were talking about grocery prices and my mother asked my wife how much we paid for milk and my wife says she doesn’t look, because it doesn’t matter when we need milk regardless. I don’t look either. It’s the same with gas prices. I hear they’ve gone way down, but I’ve honestly stopped looking. What difference does it make what a gallon of gas costs when I need that gallon no matter what it costs?

    • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      I like to pay attention though so you can see firsthand how bad things are getting. I remember selling shoes to old people and all the employees would joke that they all had no sane grip on the fact that prices go up. They’d say at 80 years old, well when I was 30 that used to be $X thats way too high of a price! Its funny though because we will never experience that. We are used to it being this way year to year much less 30 or 40 years from now. So much so that some people dont even check the price anymore, we just know its higher than it used to be automatically. It’s sad.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        We don’t “need” milk in the sense that it is not necessary for our survival. We need milk in order to keep eating and drinking the things we enjoy eating and drinking. And I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect milk in your tea and your cereal.

        • Adalast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, you do need milk. Don’t let the capitalist propaganda engine tell you that comfort and contentment are not necessary for life. To even insinuate that having milk to put on cereal or in tea is some sort of luxury or indulgence that you should be able to cut out is lunacy. Human beings need comfort as much as we need socialization for emotional and mental maintenance. We need fun and enjoyment. That is why even in modern hunter-gatherer tribes the workload is less than half of ours and they all have full bellies and spend the rest of their time pursuing leisure activities and spending time with their family/community.

          (not accusing the person you are replying to, they are a victim too)

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I don’t disagree with you at all. I was sort of trying to say that myself but you put it much better than I did. I can live without any comfort if it means that or death, but it sure would take a toll on me. That’s why solitary confinement is such torture.

            • Adalast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              I guess my sleep-deprived ass is just lurking lemme looking for good lessons to which to attach a little eloquence.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s not about comfort. Humans need calcium, lactose, various bacteria to not, eh, have reduced mobility conditioned by the toilet always being nearby, and so on.

          • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Capitalist propaganda engine? Do you hear yourself? Say those words out loud and tell me your not a looney conspiracy theorist. What propaganda? XD

            Is it propaganda to say most mammals do not keep drinking milk after they’re babies? Is it also propaganda to say things like broccoli, kale, nuts and seeds are calcium alternatives? Is it propaganda that the vitamin D can be obtained from fish, sunlight, and liver? Explain what this propaganda machine is. 🤡

            • Adalast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I wish we were on Reddit so I could /r/woosh you. Did you even read the comment? The comment has literally nothing to do with the milk. I also acknowledged that you weren’t some asshat shill, but perhaps I was too forgiving.

              • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                You talked about milk for most of the comment. Also, people on Lemmy unironically talk like you did so I assumed you were one of those “capitalism is the reason for every bad thing” kind of people.

                • Adalast@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I indicated that the idea that something trivial being considered a luxury or indulgence that could be eliminated was asinine, milk happened to be the pertinent example in the discussion. Everyone else seemed to get that.

                  Also, most people seem to understand what about our world is propaganda. Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I’m making no judgements, just wondering.

                  Not every bad thing. Capitalism has its place, but the extent to which most of the populace idolizes it is unreasonable. My economic philosophy is what is known as Moral Capitalism. Essentially, make money, but don’t do it at the expense or detriment of people or the environment. Don’t abuse employees, don’t abuse customers, don’t abuse the community, don’t abuse the planet. And I am using the dictionary definition of abuse here: to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way. We the public are offended by the number of ads we have shoved down our throats every day. We the employees are harmed by the stress that unrealistic deadlines and low wages cause. We the community are injured by the manipulation of legislation such that we are not allowed to protect ourselves from predatory and aggressive contracts that we are forced to sign every day that we have no choice in if we want to continue functioning in society.

                  And there is 100% a propaganda machine operating in the foreground of our world that is acting on behalf if the amoral capitalist institutions that are in control of everything. Republicans, marketing, PR. Articles being posted telling poor people that if they are struggling to make ends meet they can just start skipping meals instead of demanding fair pay. The whole Avacado Toast misdirect. Anytime you see the working poor being blamed for their existence instead of outrage at employers who siphon off 33-50% of the irreplaceable hours of their employee’s day and don’t pay enough for those hours that said employee is not destitute, that is the Capitalist Propaganda Engine. Everyone who works full time should be making enough that they can survive easily. Not lead a life of luxury, but not have to worry about the next 3 months rent, save for a vacation next year, not have to use food stamps to eat, and not have to skip meals so their child can eat. Period. End of discussion. If an employer can’t pay their employees at least that much, then they should not be in business. This is the floor, the bare minimum. Just because you started a business does not automatically mean it should succeed. The same is not true to be a worker. Just because you work full-time, you should be able to survive with minimal financial stress. If you have additional training, certifications, specialized skills, etc. you can claim you deserve the lap of luxury.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Capitalist propaganda tells us that we don’t “need” anything and that all of those things you’re talking about are luxuries. Food? That’s a luxury. Clothes? That’s a luxury too. Water? You better believe you don’t need that, you selfish little piggie!

              (also, tbh they didn’t specify the milk has to come from an animal. plant milk is milk!)

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            For now. We’ll see. We’re down to a single income, but we’re going to keep putting milk in our tea as long as we can. Because I’ve been drinking tea with milk almost as long as I have been alive thanks to an English father and grandmother. It’s like heroin for me except with milk and just a little something to sweeten it a bit. I don’t want to go through tea withdrawal.

            And don’t tell me I can just drink tea without milk. That’s like non-alcoholic beer. You have to be desperate. I’d rather get the tea shakes.

                • Remmock@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I’ve tried stevia before. Can’t get over the cotton-candy flavor. I do make sure to use brown sugar, though. Sitting by the back window as I log in for work, contemplating if Anericans have a final straw or if we’ll just keep growing more and more bitter without functionally snapping due to the socioeconomic pressure like steel bars balanced on a beam with steady pressure on both sides, warping and weakening us.

                  Then it’s time to start my shift.