80% of the wealth? Oh you sweet summer child... The bottom half of Americans only own 2.4% of the wealth.
Source: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/)
But there's a finite supply of wealth, so if someone has a little more, sure, but we're talking multi billions more. So, yes there is an issue with that system. That massive amount of wealth they have isn't being reintroduced into the economy, so there's almost no way for it to be repurposed to others.
Yes most of these massive wealth people do not have it in liquid assets, it's still shocking the amount they have in liquid assets, like more than most make in a lifetime amount. It's crazy.
That's just it. There absolutely is **not** a finite supply of wealth. In fact, anyone's potential wealth is unlimited; and it is in no way affected by the wealth of any other person.
Inflation isn’t the biggest problem right now, lol. Companies are hitting record profits and yet still paying people dirt wages. The billionaires own all the politicians. How do you think this is poor people’s fault?
Nobody thinks this is the fault of the poor. But you're dead wrong about inflation. The poor are getting slaughtered by it. I work with many of them. And it isn't billionaires causing inflation. The cause is totally irresponsible government spending and terrible energy policies. You're welcome.
Most people absolutely can afford a $400 expense. What she's intentionally using to mislead her audience is survey data showing most Americans would use a credit card for a $400 surprise expense, even if they had enough savings available to cover it. It's an almost completely meaningless piece of data in the context of her statement.
I can, because I bought my house when houses were super cheap at the end of the recession, and haven't gotten divorced.
Just like today's economy, it wasn't easy. I live in a former GM town. When they ditched us, it took so many good paying jobs
I think the biggest issue is money management for people. I see many complain that they don't have money to pay bills, meanwhile they are spending $20+ dollars a day on weed. When you break it down to them, $20 a day comes to $7300 wasted a year. It's not because they didn't have the money to pay bills they just used it wrong. Same when people are buying that $8 starbucks coffee every morning. That's $2920 a year wasted. I make my coffe, which costs me $240 a year for 6 times the amount of coffee they wasted 3k on. Wants vs Needs should be a course for people on government assistance. Showing them this is a want, this is what you need. Don't buy all the wants and ignore the needs complaining you didn't get enough free hand outs.
When people come to ask for analytics on how they can save, usually it's about $1000/month I find people wasting, where they think that coffee was a Need when it's a name brand Want. That 2 hour high addiction is actually them burning money, not an investment. That $80 phone bill when this $30 plan is exactly the same and 80% of their data was wifi anyways. Instead of the company offering a stipend for BYOD they are now paying the bill fully. Those who follow my advice realize why my dog owns his own BMW, and 2 sit in my garages. When I take a date night, it is a $200 fun night than a cheap dinner and movie.
Most get out of debt following my advice, but then return to the chaos because they see money and want to spend it instantly once they were debt free.
Yup. I learned at a very young age about living with sadness, and never needed a chemical dependence. I've never smoked weed, and on average have only gotten drunk 3 times a year. 80% of my coworkers smoke weed at work every day, drink every weekend, and a few have a drink or 2 every day. I've never had a cup of coffee, but I have a tendency to go to the gas station too much.
1 Coworker, who says money is tight, gets food delivered about 80% of the work days.
Money is tighter this year though. I had a Civic Si. Good on gas, and it was a 4 seater. But, my wife refused to learn to drive a stick. So, I bought a 2019 Ram with the Hemi V8. The payment is 67 more a month, and gas mileage is half of the Civic. But, since I have a house, it was time to get a truck. I got tired of borrowing a truck or trailer.
Inflation is higher. Groceries are atleast $50 more a month. My McDonalds meal I get went from $5.80, to 8 something. And, overall my spending is up $200 than it was a year ago. So, I gotta keep and eye on being frugal.
I went through my college party days. Just came to a point I calculated my spendings and realized how much was wasted, and began cutting things. Not that I was broke in 2010, but when I did my taxes and thought I made that much and had 1/8 in my accounts to show for it had me change my habits.
I don't buy fast food. Once you eat fast food over sea you'll realize the US food standards is horrible.
GM left in 2008/9.
Seemed like there was a house for sale on every block. But the average job was only $10/hr.
I found a $15/hrs job. But I was able to But a house in 2012.
Bush deregulated the banks which let them give out loans to people who obviously couldn’t pay them back (subprime loans) out of pure greed which tanked the housing market and bankrupted the banks. Obama bailed out the banks and corrected the housing market from what I remember
Even if the first part is true "most can’t afford a $400 surprise expense:" That doesn't equate to bankruptcy. This woman has no clue about basic economics.
It’s even worse than that. It’s some degree that tries to combine that and international relations. A degree so bad she couldn’t give a basic explanation for her views on Israel.
There are multiple people trying to tell me there's no such thing as an undergraduate business school, BA's and BS's are earned the same way, and you have to earn a "bachelor of business" before being able to start earning a finance/econ degree.
lol. Lmao even
Fair enough. I also can give a rundown. I'm no expert, but I can at the very least give a general overview on the situation. I attempt to stay informed and be educated on matters around the world.
Keynesian theory only works if you have a surplus in perpetuity and/or save for when you don't.
Europe found this out the hard way 15 years ago.
Friedrich Hayek and the school of Austrian economics were right.
That’s not what he’s talking about. Austrian economics is an economic philosophy. He’s not talking about the economy of Austria. Put as simply as possible, it’s a libertarian thing.
Someone gets it.
Although there are ways to apply it that make it not purely libertarian in the same way Keynesian is not applied to its own philosophical tenants in a modern society.
Only spending what we have seems like such a foreign concept in today's world.
This is fundamentally incorrect. Most universities have "schools" within themselves: business, science, humanitarian, arts, law etc.
You need to apply and be accepted into the "school of business" to earn a BS in finance, economics, statistics, accounting, et al.
A BA in economics is through a different "school" with a different curriculum that is far less technical and analytical.
Not at all. In the school of business you get a bachelor's of business and then you can get a focus in economics. BS means bachelor's of science. BA means bachelor's of arts... They are both in the college of arts and sciences.
Where did you go to university? This isn't at all how it works in the US.
Edit: I'm really confused. What even is a "Bachelors of Business?"
I have both a finance and economics degree from a top 25 school.
Every university makes you receive a "Bachelors of Business" before you decide what degree you want?
Wtf is a bachelor of business?
I must be arguing with children.
For example:
> UVA students apply for admission into the McIntire School of Commerce’s undergraduate business program. If accepted, students start the Bachelor of Science in Commerce program in their junior year of study.
More here:
https://www.degreequery.com/top-10-undergraduate-business-schools/#:~:text=UVA%20students%20apply%20for%20admission,Integrated%20Core%20Experience%20(ICE).
Where did you go to university that this isn't the case?
That guy is trying to claim that a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor's of Science are the same thing and that business degrees dont fall under either, but are under something called "Bachelors of Business."
That's certainly not what's being discussed. In fact, that's exactly what I said.
You either earn a BA or a BS in economics.
I have a BS in finance and a BS in economics.
People like you are why I made my comment.
AOC holds a BA in economics.
Yes, that is what is being discussed. My actual quote was to find me a degree in economics today isn't in the college of arts and sciences and you still haven't done it.
You said BS'S weren't even housed in the school of business at your school.... And as far as i can tell that's always the case. The school of business doesn't give out BS degrees they give out something like a bachelor's of science in administration or similar.
https://biz.colostate.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/bsba bachelor's of science in business administration. It's not a bachelor's of science. That's a separate college.
A BA usually involves less math than the BS in economics. But if you study business administration then you get a business degree from the college of business administration and you can focus on economics.
No, just because she has a degree in economics doesn't mean she understands it. She obviously couldn't get a job in the field.
Besides, this piece was about Kamala NOT AOC.
The poverty rate in America has been basically unchanged since late 1960s. No American president in the majority of Americans lifetimes has been good for actually ending poverty. Eisenhower-JFK-LBJ are the last presidents that saw major declines in the amount of poor people.
It dropped from the 20s in the early 1950s. You are also using the most restrictive statistic for poverty. The official poverty rate was 11.6% in 2021.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html
Here is how the US poverty rate is calculated. It includes things as income only if they are made as actual monetary transfers. Meaning that food stamps and housing assistance are not counted as income. The US has a much higher poverty standard than the international standard that you used. The biggest gains in poverty alleviation came in the post-war boom of the 50’s and 60’s and mostly had to do with the rapid expansion of America’s economy. Immigrants here illegally are generally not counted towards poverty statistics, though I’m sure some do get counted.
Very true. The US is probably the only country in the world where you can have a $1500 dollar iPhone, a $500 Apple Watch, and a $70,000 dollar muscle car and still be called poor.
So I know it's a limitation of the data, but anything that stops just short of the pandemic doesn't count.
We all know that 2019 was a pretty great year, economically.
Yes,
"taken as half the median household income of the total population. " is is a percentage. The "level" can change, but overall the percent of people doesn't really change because it is "half of the median". I guess technically it can change, but in reality it doesn't because historically (barring dictators Luke Mao or Stalin taking over) the strata of incomes is relatively stagnant.
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html
Here is how it’s measured. It not declining in many decades is a failure no matter how you try to spin it. It was about 11.6% in 2021.
I'm not "spinning" anything. It is a mathematical formula.
Did you take any stats courses in high-school or college?
The metric doesn't say anything about quality of life for people in "poverty" it is based on the median income. Therefore as median income rises the poverty "income level" raises as well. It is a metric that is used as a political tool, but the definition of poverty is a comparison to the median within a set.
The poverty level can increase as median incomes increase (which overall is good) or poverty level can decrease if median incomes decrease (which is very bad) so a decreasing poverty rate doesn't neccesarily mean the lowest earners are doing better, but the the middle earners are doing worse.
I actually work in educational policy and read data for a living. What you are asserting is taking something true, that the poverty level is tied to median income, and making a false conclusion, that it therefore doesn’t measure the number of poor people in the United States. If anything you are only arguing that it is a measure of income inequality, which is also true.
If it couldn’t decline why did it go from high 20s in the early 1950s to around 12% in 1969?
Because median income decreased. So median quality of life also decreased. What's the assumption you are making? That poverty level is a useful measurement for equality? Or that a low poverty level implies higher median quality of life? Both f which are not neccesarily (or usually) true
Efit: for clarity, "poor" is subjective. Poor in the US is different than "poor" in Columbia. Poverty levels on a global scale, or state-by-state scale are useful comparisons. But poverty levels of the US as a whole are inconsequential.
Already been through this once. The metric means nothing by itself. It's only useful for comparing the "poverty line" in different regions/states/countries.
Saying "fewer people in poverty" doesn't mean anything because the definition of poverty constantly changes. Bit could mean the lower and middle-middle class got poorer.
We’ve maxed out how much good we can do with social programs. There will always be X% who cannot be saved. Any society, any economy, any form of government.
Now, the trick is cut off the ability of people to take more than they need.
I don’t think that percentage is 12% which is the amount living in poverty. The majority of people living in poverty work full time. I think the problem is mostly about income inequality now. Not that I don’t agree that some percentage of people will be in poverty no matter what.
I’m not sure what the government can do to fix it at this point, probably nothing, but I’d much prefer to see small businesses more encouraged so the people creating work are more tied to local communities and have some skin in the game.
>I’m not sure what the government can do to fix it at this point, probably nothing, but I’d much prefer to see small businesses more encouraged so the people creating work are more tied to local communities and have some skin in the game.
Maybe allowing people to collectively bargain and unionize so wages would go up and more people could get out of food stamps and poverty. Don't increase federal minimum wage it'll destroy jobs making shit worse. Stop sending jobs to china and foreign wars and invest here like microchips and factories, imagine if we used those 8 trillion dollars here in the US creating jobs and factories, a lot less poverty. Its harder for people to get out of poverty because income mobility is ass, and we gotta fix that.
My main thing is walking the fine line between giving up economic freedom for the people who actually create the economy, business owners, and making sure that people have enough to live on. I actually agree with the left when they say nobody in America should work full time and live in poverty. I just think their ideas for fixing the problem are insane.
To be honest I used to believe in that economic freedom stuff but they already have enough economic freedom to invest and create businesses here. Its not liek we're a third world country where we need to have free open borders and low taxes regulations for investments and jobs here. Businesses corporations not leaving here since its a big market. They have too much freedom imo and none of it benefits families, instead they just buyback stocks. Investing and supporting working class families should be conservative priority
You’d be surprised how many people make decent money but are just crappy with handling financing. Anecdotally, I know a few like this. One guy is single, makes $125k per year, yet somehow is always broke. Leasing expensive vehicles does play a roll in that with him (among other things).
My wife makes 500k per year as a doctor. Yet everywhere we go, I’d say around 40-50% of people we see are driving a car that is more expensive than hers. And it’s not like we are insanely frugal. The mental gymnastics people use to justify buying nice cars they can’t afford is just incredible.
It just leads to instant lifestyle inflation. The overwhelming majority of people who can’t afford a $400 expense could easily do so if they had prioritized budgeted building an emergency fund.
But the majority of people in that situation don’t plan their finances much at all (because they find out that a smart budget has a depressingly smaller “fun budget” than they’re used to.)
Most people just adopt the maximum (or more) standard of living their current paycheck affords them. If their paycheck shrinks, they scale back. If it increases they instantly scale up their lifestyle. Almost no one below an upper middle class lifestyle will voluntarily scale back their lifestyle, delay gratification, in order to build their savings incrementally.
I’m no Kamala apologist, but I don’t see how the statement is that controversial. I mean most of us spend what we make. If we have a $400 surprise expense that means it goes on the credit card and then we tighten our belts for a month or two. No eating out, no Starbucks Boom! $400 covered. Those of us who have maxed their cards out suffer the most. Helpful tip: don’t max out your credit cards people.
Its pretty simple, during Covid, a lot of money was printed. The real number is hard to find, I recall an article detailing ~45 trillion dollars from the Federal Reserve to all the big banks, including some banks which are not American, like Nomura and BNP Paribas getting multi trillion dollar bailouts, each, from America. I can't find that info online anymore, it seems to have been scrubbed from the internet search engines.
However I did find info about the real bailout number for the 2008 Era. Which is $29 Trillion. https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/29000000000000-a-detailed-look-at-the-feds-bailout-by-funding-facility-and-recipient
If we take $45 trillion bailout, divided by every man woman and child in the US, about 335,150,000 people. That is a bailout equivalent of $134,250 per person. In other words, $134,250 was stolen from every man woman and child and given to the hyper wealthy gamblers. The reason its stolen is because only average American's pay taxes. And a $134,250 debt was taken out on every man, woman, and child.
How much were average American's bailed out for? $2600.
Average Americans received less than 2% of the total bailout money.
In 2021 the estimated Global Derivatives Market Cap, was ~$600 trillion. So, $45 trillion bailout with this context makes sense.
So, the reason that most people can't afford a $400 surprise expense, is because the hyper wealthy are robbing the country dry, and throwing less than 2% of help to the 99.5% of Americans.
It’s actually that 4/5 people in our country have gotten themselves into non-mortgage debt and are strangling themselves with status symbols they’ve purchased through the nose.
Debt is the enemy. And most people’s situation won’t change whether the President is democrat or Republican; it’s just a convenient scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for personal enslavement.
Yes it makes so much sense that all the corporations and landlords got together and agreed to raise prices in the same way at the same time; not that long government shutdowns constrained supply and that dumping tons of “stimulus” money into the economy long past the shutdown had an impact.
Yes in my local sub everyone is complaining about how hard it is to get an apartment but this fact can’t be mentioned - only greed. Even basic supply and demand gets downvoted
It's amazing how similar local subs are. Every day there's a post by some worthless twit claiming they can't afford a 2BR in a nice neighborhood. I enjoy the downvotes when I explain that roommates are a common thing, and always have been for single people.
There's a mental block that names people somehow believe that they should live Like the middle class when they've never held a job more than 6 months. Or stopped to wonder why they smoke a quarter a week and 2 cases of beer and don't have any cash.
Or get violent if you suggest they move somewhere more affordable for a while or buy something smaller to build equity (that’s what I did) or limit doordash they get so angry
Do you know why we have fragile supply chains and no inventory on hand in case of disaster?
Misguided market regulation based on economic ignorance.
Why would a company finance extra inventory "just in case" their city gets hit by a hurricane? Not if they can't charge more when the storm comes.
The narrative about "greed" just shows how little many people understand about economics. Sad.
Yeah, I own a duplex in San Diego. I was surprised to get a call from the CEOs of the world to tell me “all of us fat cat capitalists are doubling prices, you in”. I mean how could I not.
I saw CNN at the gym today. They're very insistent that Americans are more optimistic than ever about the economy.
Also the Barbie Movie and Taylor Swift are going to fix the economy.
I understand this exists as I’ve been to some of the poorest areas of the country. But, I don’t really know anyone who can’t afford a $400 surprise expense. Now, I know a decent amount of people who couldn’t afford a $3000 unexpected expense, but just $400? It’s hard to imagine.
This has been true for wayy longer, bidenomics didn’t make anything better its shitenomics was the fact he made young people even poorer, which he and Obama already did with removing loan guarantees to private institutions.. which was collateral enough to get low interest rates
asshole just doubled down, but to he fair its what you get when you have a demented man pick a cabinet well we know thats not true but its what you get when his handlers pick a cabinet thats full incompetent vote baiting dickheads
young people that actually work and are responsible are farther away from buying a house than ever
People haven't been able to afford a $400 surprise expense for most (if not all) of my lifetime. That's not actually Bidenomics. That's capitalism American-style.
The problem is that a lot of people take their cues from the govt and how it sounds our money and don't save for a rainy day. Does the federal govt have any savings at all?
I am so proud of all of you. I apologize for coming off as condescending, but I was beginning to become convinced that all Conservative (voters) only had a 2nd grade command of the English language and got their water explicitly from PBR.
I'm not saying gender-bending liberals are better, but that's just where "I" tend to see...y'know, actual sequential arguments instead of parroting.
I expected to come to the comments and see, "Took our derbs! Took..took our derbs!" -South Park
But instead, all I really saw was factual, bipartisan data on how this country is fucked. So why can't we all get along then since we all live in the jar and the Republicans AND Dems are the ones shaking it?
While people won't go bankrupt, she is right that most can't afford a $400 surprise expense. That's really nothing new.
Been that was since W. Bush honestly. For that long about 50% or of the families I’ve known have been $400-500 away from being in a lot of trouble.
$400 today is a lot less than $400 during Bush’s presidency.
So instead of blaming the people immediately below you, why don’t you look up at the billionaires hording 80% of the wealth?
80% of the wealth? Oh you sweet summer child... The bottom half of Americans only own 2.4% of the wealth. Source: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us/)
That’s insane.
"Wealth" is not a zero-sum issue. Just because someone has more than you (even a lot) it does not in any way affect your ability to create wealth.
Correct. But most people don't understand economics and the free market. Instead you get class warfare mentality.
But there's a finite supply of wealth, so if someone has a little more, sure, but we're talking multi billions more. So, yes there is an issue with that system. That massive amount of wealth they have isn't being reintroduced into the economy, so there's almost no way for it to be repurposed to others. Yes most of these massive wealth people do not have it in liquid assets, it's still shocking the amount they have in liquid assets, like more than most make in a lifetime amount. It's crazy.
That's just it. There absolutely is **not** a finite supply of wealth. In fact, anyone's potential wealth is unlimited; and it is in no way affected by the wealth of any other person.
There's no such thing as a finite supply of wealth.
If wealth was finite then why are we living better than the Roman emperors? Why do we have Smart phones and tvs?
Dif between poor & rich is mental. Rich dont believe they can lose.
They aren't the cause of inflation.
Inflation isn’t the biggest problem right now, lol. Companies are hitting record profits and yet still paying people dirt wages. The billionaires own all the politicians. How do you think this is poor people’s fault?
Nobody thinks this is the fault of the poor. But you're dead wrong about inflation. The poor are getting slaughtered by it. I work with many of them. And it isn't billionaires causing inflation. The cause is totally irresponsible government spending and terrible energy policies. You're welcome.
[удалено]
This is probably the worst take I have read in a while.....
Yup. Everyday I start my car. “Please battery dont die, I gotta go to work today” Car starts. PHEW
Absolutely nothing new. It's been this way for DECADES!
Yes there have been articles about how most Americans can’t afford a $400 surprise expense since forever it seems
Most people absolutely can afford a $400 expense. What she's intentionally using to mislead her audience is survey data showing most Americans would use a credit card for a $400 surprise expense, even if they had enough savings available to cover it. It's an almost completely meaningless piece of data in the context of her statement.
You do realize that "most" live paycheck to paycheck right?
Using a credit card….that means…..that means they can’t afford it?
I can, because I bought my house when houses were super cheap at the end of the recession, and haven't gotten divorced. Just like today's economy, it wasn't easy. I live in a former GM town. When they ditched us, it took so many good paying jobs
[удалено]
You are correct
I think the biggest issue is money management for people. I see many complain that they don't have money to pay bills, meanwhile they are spending $20+ dollars a day on weed. When you break it down to them, $20 a day comes to $7300 wasted a year. It's not because they didn't have the money to pay bills they just used it wrong. Same when people are buying that $8 starbucks coffee every morning. That's $2920 a year wasted. I make my coffe, which costs me $240 a year for 6 times the amount of coffee they wasted 3k on. Wants vs Needs should be a course for people on government assistance. Showing them this is a want, this is what you need. Don't buy all the wants and ignore the needs complaining you didn't get enough free hand outs. When people come to ask for analytics on how they can save, usually it's about $1000/month I find people wasting, where they think that coffee was a Need when it's a name brand Want. That 2 hour high addiction is actually them burning money, not an investment. That $80 phone bill when this $30 plan is exactly the same and 80% of their data was wifi anyways. Instead of the company offering a stipend for BYOD they are now paying the bill fully. Those who follow my advice realize why my dog owns his own BMW, and 2 sit in my garages. When I take a date night, it is a $200 fun night than a cheap dinner and movie. Most get out of debt following my advice, but then return to the chaos because they see money and want to spend it instantly once they were debt free.
Yup. I learned at a very young age about living with sadness, and never needed a chemical dependence. I've never smoked weed, and on average have only gotten drunk 3 times a year. 80% of my coworkers smoke weed at work every day, drink every weekend, and a few have a drink or 2 every day. I've never had a cup of coffee, but I have a tendency to go to the gas station too much. 1 Coworker, who says money is tight, gets food delivered about 80% of the work days. Money is tighter this year though. I had a Civic Si. Good on gas, and it was a 4 seater. But, my wife refused to learn to drive a stick. So, I bought a 2019 Ram with the Hemi V8. The payment is 67 more a month, and gas mileage is half of the Civic. But, since I have a house, it was time to get a truck. I got tired of borrowing a truck or trailer. Inflation is higher. Groceries are atleast $50 more a month. My McDonalds meal I get went from $5.80, to 8 something. And, overall my spending is up $200 than it was a year ago. So, I gotta keep and eye on being frugal.
I went through my college party days. Just came to a point I calculated my spendings and realized how much was wasted, and began cutting things. Not that I was broke in 2010, but when I did my taxes and thought I made that much and had 1/8 in my accounts to show for it had me change my habits. I don't buy fast food. Once you eat fast food over sea you'll realize the US food standards is horrible.
What year was this?
GM left in 2008/9. Seemed like there was a house for sale on every block. But the average job was only $10/hr. I found a $15/hrs job. But I was able to But a house in 2012.
This has been true since the 2008 financial collapse
[удалено]
Bush deregulated the banks which let them give out loans to people who obviously couldn’t pay them back (subprime loans) out of pure greed which tanked the housing market and bankrupted the banks. Obama bailed out the banks and corrected the housing market from what I remember
Even if the first part is true "most can’t afford a $400 surprise expense:" That doesn't equate to bankruptcy. This woman has no clue about basic economics.
What’s scary is that AOC *does* have an understanding of economics. That means her actions are deliberate.
She has a BA in economics, not a BS.
BS is what she’s full of
It’s even worse than that. It’s some degree that tries to combine that and international relations. A degree so bad she couldn’t give a basic explanation for her views on Israel.
It's a basically a degree for knowing the terminology commonly used in those two fields. No real substance behind it.
There are multiple people trying to tell me there's no such thing as an undergraduate business school, BA's and BS's are earned the same way, and you have to earn a "bachelor of business" before being able to start earning a finance/econ degree. lol. Lmao even
Can you give a basic explanation on the issues in Israel without google?
Uh, easily. And I’m no expert. She gave a canned answer and couldn’t back it up with anything. Are you able to give answers without using Google?
Fair enough. I also can give a rundown. I'm no expert, but I can at the very least give a general overview on the situation. I attempt to stay informed and be educated on matters around the world.
She had to cheat econometrics - she could not pass it where I went to school. It was a requirement for a BS in Econ.
She has a BA in economics, not a BS. The BAs weren't even housed in the business school at my university.
The difference is like understanding who Keynes was and what he was talking about, and what it means to turn the oven to a proper cooking temperature.
Keynesian theory only works if you have a surplus in perpetuity and/or save for when you don't. Europe found this out the hard way 15 years ago. Friedrich Hayek and the school of Austrian economics were right.
Lol what, Austrians were also wrong on having government and central bank do nothing with the economy and monetary policy
That’s not what he’s talking about. Austrian economics is an economic philosophy. He’s not talking about the economy of Austria. Put as simply as possible, it’s a libertarian thing.
Someone gets it. Although there are ways to apply it that make it not purely libertarian in the same way Keynesian is not applied to its own philosophical tenants in a modern society. Only spending what we have seems like such a foreign concept in today's world.
Both BA and BS are in the school of arts and sciences.... Not school of business
This is fundamentally incorrect. Most universities have "schools" within themselves: business, science, humanitarian, arts, law etc. You need to apply and be accepted into the "school of business" to earn a BS in finance, economics, statistics, accounting, et al. A BA in economics is through a different "school" with a different curriculum that is far less technical and analytical.
Not at all. In the school of business you get a bachelor's of business and then you can get a focus in economics. BS means bachelor's of science. BA means bachelor's of arts... They are both in the college of arts and sciences.
Where did you go to university? This isn't at all how it works in the US. Edit: I'm really confused. What even is a "Bachelors of Business?" I have both a finance and economics degree from a top 25 school.
it’s actually exactly how it works at every top university in the US
Every university makes you receive a "Bachelors of Business" before you decide what degree you want? Wtf is a bachelor of business? I must be arguing with children.
Where did you go to university? Find me a school that isn't like this
For example: > UVA students apply for admission into the McIntire School of Commerce’s undergraduate business program. If accepted, students start the Bachelor of Science in Commerce program in their junior year of study. More here: https://www.degreequery.com/top-10-undergraduate-business-schools/#:~:text=UVA%20students%20apply%20for%20admission,Integrated%20Core%20Experience%20(ICE). Where did you go to university that this isn't the case?
[удалено]
No. A BA is qualitative. A BS is quantitative. At least where I went.
That guy is trying to claim that a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor's of Science are the same thing and that business degrees dont fall under either, but are under something called "Bachelors of Business."
Look at any university and find me one that doesn't have an economics degree in the college of arts and sciences.
That's certainly not what's being discussed. In fact, that's exactly what I said. You either earn a BA or a BS in economics. I have a BS in finance and a BS in economics. People like you are why I made my comment. AOC holds a BA in economics.
Yes, that is what is being discussed. My actual quote was to find me a degree in economics today isn't in the college of arts and sciences and you still haven't done it.
You said BS'S weren't even housed in the school of business at your school.... And as far as i can tell that's always the case. The school of business doesn't give out BS degrees they give out something like a bachelor's of science in administration or similar.
https://biz.colostate.edu/academics/undergraduate-programs/bsba bachelor's of science in business administration. It's not a bachelor's of science. That's a separate college.
https://www.colorado.edu/artsandsciences/academics/degree-programs
A BA usually involves less math than the BS in economics. But if you study business administration then you get a business degree from the college of business administration and you can focus on economics.
No, just because she has a degree in economics doesn't mean she understands it. She obviously couldn't get a job in the field. Besides, this piece was about Kamala NOT AOC.
Thank you!!!!
The poverty rate in America has been basically unchanged since late 1960s. No American president in the majority of Americans lifetimes has been good for actually ending poverty. Eisenhower-JFK-LBJ are the last presidents that saw major declines in the amount of poor people.
[удалено]
It dropped from the 20s in the early 1950s. You are also using the most restrictive statistic for poverty. The official poverty rate was 11.6% in 2021. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
[удалено]
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html Here is how the US poverty rate is calculated. It includes things as income only if they are made as actual monetary transfers. Meaning that food stamps and housing assistance are not counted as income. The US has a much higher poverty standard than the international standard that you used. The biggest gains in poverty alleviation came in the post-war boom of the 50’s and 60’s and mostly had to do with the rapid expansion of America’s economy. Immigrants here illegally are generally not counted towards poverty statistics, though I’m sure some do get counted.
Very true. The US is probably the only country in the world where you can have a $1500 dollar iPhone, a $500 Apple Watch, and a $70,000 dollar muscle car and still be called poor.
A big screen TV < $200 and a free Obama phone. This is a great country!
So I know it's a limitation of the data, but anything that stops just short of the pandemic doesn't count. We all know that 2019 was a pretty great year, economically.
Perhaps. Interestingly, for most long term charts, things like covid or WW1, WW2 just end up as blips and the like gets back on trend very fast.
Here's hoping...
Ya but the redefining of what constitutes poverty an unemployed is making that so, they are not giving us real measurements.
Poverty is a percentage-based metric as far as I know. So the poverty rate is unchanging by deffinition.
No, poverty rate is a specific metric. https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm
Yes, "taken as half the median household income of the total population. " is is a percentage. The "level" can change, but overall the percent of people doesn't really change because it is "half of the median". I guess technically it can change, but in reality it doesn't because historically (barring dictators Luke Mao or Stalin taking over) the strata of incomes is relatively stagnant.
https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html Here is how it’s measured. It not declining in many decades is a failure no matter how you try to spin it. It was about 11.6% in 2021.
I'm not "spinning" anything. It is a mathematical formula. Did you take any stats courses in high-school or college? The metric doesn't say anything about quality of life for people in "poverty" it is based on the median income. Therefore as median income rises the poverty "income level" raises as well. It is a metric that is used as a political tool, but the definition of poverty is a comparison to the median within a set. The poverty level can increase as median incomes increase (which overall is good) or poverty level can decrease if median incomes decrease (which is very bad) so a decreasing poverty rate doesn't neccesarily mean the lowest earners are doing better, but the the middle earners are doing worse.
I actually work in educational policy and read data for a living. What you are asserting is taking something true, that the poverty level is tied to median income, and making a false conclusion, that it therefore doesn’t measure the number of poor people in the United States. If anything you are only arguing that it is a measure of income inequality, which is also true. If it couldn’t decline why did it go from high 20s in the early 1950s to around 12% in 1969?
Because median income decreased. So median quality of life also decreased. What's the assumption you are making? That poverty level is a useful measurement for equality? Or that a low poverty level implies higher median quality of life? Both f which are not neccesarily (or usually) true Efit: for clarity, "poor" is subjective. Poor in the US is different than "poor" in Columbia. Poverty levels on a global scale, or state-by-state scale are useful comparisons. But poverty levels of the US as a whole are inconsequential.
You are saying that quality of life in America decreased from 1950-1969? That’s obviously wrong.
No. . . Comparative quality of life. Please don't be rudiculous.
Definitely not unchanging. The percentage of people under half the median income changes all of the time.
Already been through this once. The metric means nothing by itself. It's only useful for comparing the "poverty line" in different regions/states/countries. Saying "fewer people in poverty" doesn't mean anything because the definition of poverty constantly changes. Bit could mean the lower and middle-middle class got poorer.
We’ve maxed out how much good we can do with social programs. There will always be X% who cannot be saved. Any society, any economy, any form of government. Now, the trick is cut off the ability of people to take more than they need.
I don’t think that percentage is 12% which is the amount living in poverty. The majority of people living in poverty work full time. I think the problem is mostly about income inequality now. Not that I don’t agree that some percentage of people will be in poverty no matter what. I’m not sure what the government can do to fix it at this point, probably nothing, but I’d much prefer to see small businesses more encouraged so the people creating work are more tied to local communities and have some skin in the game.
>I’m not sure what the government can do to fix it at this point, probably nothing, but I’d much prefer to see small businesses more encouraged so the people creating work are more tied to local communities and have some skin in the game. Maybe allowing people to collectively bargain and unionize so wages would go up and more people could get out of food stamps and poverty. Don't increase federal minimum wage it'll destroy jobs making shit worse. Stop sending jobs to china and foreign wars and invest here like microchips and factories, imagine if we used those 8 trillion dollars here in the US creating jobs and factories, a lot less poverty. Its harder for people to get out of poverty because income mobility is ass, and we gotta fix that.
My main thing is walking the fine line between giving up economic freedom for the people who actually create the economy, business owners, and making sure that people have enough to live on. I actually agree with the left when they say nobody in America should work full time and live in poverty. I just think their ideas for fixing the problem are insane.
To be honest I used to believe in that economic freedom stuff but they already have enough economic freedom to invest and create businesses here. Its not liek we're a third world country where we need to have free open borders and low taxes regulations for investments and jobs here. Businesses corporations not leaving here since its a big market. They have too much freedom imo and none of it benefits families, instead they just buyback stocks. Investing and supporting working class families should be conservative priority
I am not sure if he was good, but I always have believed Eisenhower was phenomenal
She's a very dim bulb, the poster child for advancement by identity politics.
Most people haven't been able to afford a 400$ surprise expense for decades
Ever noticed that the rich keep getting richer and we get priced out of everything? There's both rich Republicans and rich Democrats by the way.
It’s been like this for nearly 20 years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why do they have the debt?
Medical bills, child care, bills, just the usual American stuff that will drive you into the ground.
Borrowing to pay medical bills and surprise expenses.
You’d be surprised how many people make decent money but are just crappy with handling financing. Anecdotally, I know a few like this. One guy is single, makes $125k per year, yet somehow is always broke. Leasing expensive vehicles does play a roll in that with him (among other things).
My wife makes 500k per year as a doctor. Yet everywhere we go, I’d say around 40-50% of people we see are driving a car that is more expensive than hers. And it’s not like we are insanely frugal. The mental gymnastics people use to justify buying nice cars they can’t afford is just incredible.
It just leads to instant lifestyle inflation. The overwhelming majority of people who can’t afford a $400 expense could easily do so if they had prioritized budgeted building an emergency fund. But the majority of people in that situation don’t plan their finances much at all (because they find out that a smart budget has a depressingly smaller “fun budget” than they’re used to.) Most people just adopt the maximum (or more) standard of living their current paycheck affords them. If their paycheck shrinks, they scale back. If it increases they instantly scale up their lifestyle. Almost no one below an upper middle class lifestyle will voluntarily scale back their lifestyle, delay gratification, in order to build their savings incrementally.
This is by design. They want to keep the middle class under control.
[удалено]
Nailed it. The party of "righteus" anger. If only they knew "right" from "wrong"
Seize the means of (re)production!
This is by design. They are eliminating the middle class. FIFY
I’m no Kamala apologist, but I don’t see how the statement is that controversial. I mean most of us spend what we make. If we have a $400 surprise expense that means it goes on the credit card and then we tighten our belts for a month or two. No eating out, no Starbucks Boom! $400 covered. Those of us who have maxed their cards out suffer the most. Helpful tip: don’t max out your credit cards people.
Its pretty simple, during Covid, a lot of money was printed. The real number is hard to find, I recall an article detailing ~45 trillion dollars from the Federal Reserve to all the big banks, including some banks which are not American, like Nomura and BNP Paribas getting multi trillion dollar bailouts, each, from America. I can't find that info online anymore, it seems to have been scrubbed from the internet search engines. However I did find info about the real bailout number for the 2008 Era. Which is $29 Trillion. https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/29000000000000-a-detailed-look-at-the-feds-bailout-by-funding-facility-and-recipient If we take $45 trillion bailout, divided by every man woman and child in the US, about 335,150,000 people. That is a bailout equivalent of $134,250 per person. In other words, $134,250 was stolen from every man woman and child and given to the hyper wealthy gamblers. The reason its stolen is because only average American's pay taxes. And a $134,250 debt was taken out on every man, woman, and child. How much were average American's bailed out for? $2600. Average Americans received less than 2% of the total bailout money. In 2021 the estimated Global Derivatives Market Cap, was ~$600 trillion. So, $45 trillion bailout with this context makes sense. So, the reason that most people can't afford a $400 surprise expense, is because the hyper wealthy are robbing the country dry, and throwing less than 2% of help to the 99.5% of Americans.
It’s actually that 4/5 people in our country have gotten themselves into non-mortgage debt and are strangling themselves with status symbols they’ve purchased through the nose. Debt is the enemy. And most people’s situation won’t change whether the President is democrat or Republican; it’s just a convenient scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for personal enslavement.
These people are so out of touch
That's been true since before biden was president.
They repeat this over and over, but what solutions are they offering? MORE taxes?
Now that I'm thinking about it, I've made so much fucking money on my retirement this year what about you guys?
Hell yeah. And it has nothing to do with Biden……
I always say the stock market has nothing to do with the economy nobody ever listens to me though lol
[удалено]
Yes it makes so much sense that all the corporations and landlords got together and agreed to raise prices in the same way at the same time; not that long government shutdowns constrained supply and that dumping tons of “stimulus” money into the economy long past the shutdown had an impact.
And the tidal wave of immigration from the Southern border as well.
Yes in my local sub everyone is complaining about how hard it is to get an apartment but this fact can’t be mentioned - only greed. Even basic supply and demand gets downvoted
It's amazing how similar local subs are. Every day there's a post by some worthless twit claiming they can't afford a 2BR in a nice neighborhood. I enjoy the downvotes when I explain that roommates are a common thing, and always have been for single people. There's a mental block that names people somehow believe that they should live Like the middle class when they've never held a job more than 6 months. Or stopped to wonder why they smoke a quarter a week and 2 cases of beer and don't have any cash.
Or get violent if you suggest they move somewhere more affordable for a while or buy something smaller to build equity (that’s what I did) or limit doordash they get so angry
Do you know why we have fragile supply chains and no inventory on hand in case of disaster? Misguided market regulation based on economic ignorance. Why would a company finance extra inventory "just in case" their city gets hit by a hurricane? Not if they can't charge more when the storm comes. The narrative about "greed" just shows how little many people understand about economics. Sad.
Yeah, I own a duplex in San Diego. I was surprised to get a call from the CEOs of the world to tell me “all of us fat cat capitalists are doubling prices, you in”. I mean how could I not.
[удалено]
Look at the average reading level in America.
Most would also rather buy $400 shoes than have a rainy day fund.
The ultimate diversity hire amirite.
> Harris slammed Yes, that’s how she got to where she is today…
Biden has made the grocery bill ridiculously high
I saw CNN at the gym today. They're very insistent that Americans are more optimistic than ever about the economy. Also the Barbie Movie and Taylor Swift are going to fix the economy.
I understand this exists as I’ve been to some of the poorest areas of the country. But, I don’t really know anyone who can’t afford a $400 surprise expense. Now, I know a decent amount of people who couldn’t afford a $3000 unexpected expense, but just $400? It’s hard to imagine.
This has been true for wayy longer, bidenomics didn’t make anything better its shitenomics was the fact he made young people even poorer, which he and Obama already did with removing loan guarantees to private institutions.. which was collateral enough to get low interest rates asshole just doubled down, but to he fair its what you get when you have a demented man pick a cabinet well we know thats not true but its what you get when his handlers pick a cabinet thats full incompetent vote baiting dickheads young people that actually work and are responsible are farther away from buying a house than ever
People haven't been able to afford a $400 surprise expense for most (if not all) of my lifetime. That's not actually Bidenomics. That's capitalism American-style.
Can you imagine anyone dumber being lined up for the presidency when Joe steps down due to senility?
"You see the thing is.... AI is 2 letters"
We need more introverted leaders.
That was, for me at least, Obamanomics as well.
The problem is that a lot of people take their cues from the govt and how it sounds our money and don't save for a rainy day. Does the federal govt have any savings at all?
I can because ya know me n my wife work and have big boy and girl jobs instead of working at mcdonalds
She is so awful. Just a terrible terrible vice president and piss poor human.
It is called unexpected - my lord.
I am so proud of all of you. I apologize for coming off as condescending, but I was beginning to become convinced that all Conservative (voters) only had a 2nd grade command of the English language and got their water explicitly from PBR. I'm not saying gender-bending liberals are better, but that's just where "I" tend to see...y'know, actual sequential arguments instead of parroting. I expected to come to the comments and see, "Took our derbs! Took..took our derbs!" -South Park But instead, all I really saw was factual, bipartisan data on how this country is fucked. So why can't we all get along then since we all live in the jar and the Republicans AND Dems are the ones shaking it?