Economically speaking, you don’t matter anymore (current economic theory)

That’s accurate. Less market share = not mattering as much. As our population grows and average person’s pay fails to increase with the market, they lose market share.

I don’t really like this analogy though since any individual average person had so little market share to begin with, they had little economic influence even 50 years ago.

quote:

---

I don’t really like this analogy though since any individual average person had so little market share to begin with, they had little economic influence even 50 years ago.

---

True, but the lower economic groups were at least “needed” in the past from both a consumption and production standpoint.

Nowadays, it appears that that is no longer the case.

With AI and robotics, they aren’t even needed from a production standpoint, which is arguably far more destructive.

This is a new system we have no experience with.

quote:

---

Look at the percentage of the lower class drawing welfare. They’re not adding much to the economy at all now. The ones not working could even be considered a net drain in the full lifecycle of money. There were much fewer welfare recipients 50 years ago.

---

I completely agree, which goes along with the argument made in the OP.

In distant human history and recent human history, if you did not have jobs for the lower socioeconomic groups, menial tasks would not be completed and this would impact the economy, at least from a production standpoint.

Now, they aren’t needed at all for both their consumption and production, generating a much larger, and growing, underclass which does nothing but drain the system.

Yet, the economy grows. It is both fascinating and horrifying.

quote:

---

We needed the labor and aggregate spending from the lower class previously. A lot of businesses still do, but there are more in the lower class and their market share is still driving lower to be less impactful.

---

Which is a huge problem.

quote:

---

But I agree with your sentiment that this all leads to socialism. We’re reaching the point where the class of people that feel they don’t matter and can’t improve their outcomes is greater than the number of people on the other side.

---

100%

Mass disenfranchisement, essentially.

The younger generations are feeling the negatives and are ascribing the socialist model quite strongly.

quote:

---

One claim: there are now more private-equity firms in the U.S. than there are McDonald’s restaurants — used to illustrate how financialization dominates the economy. ?

---

Funny enough I've seen a few videos on YT about how PE is a huge bubble that's going to pop.

These doomcasting consolidation theories aren't new, and there are a few reasons why they never quite come true. One reason is that, like with command economies, when you have too large of operations controlling things, they aren't agile enough to react to the market at large. They think they can plan/predict things, and it's just not possible.

The second is that these theories always emerge when things are going well, and they ignore that smaller negative impacts have large impacts on these large companies. I'll give you a great, recent example Remember when these theories were being specifically pushed with the massive companies buying RE a few years ago? And how all of the "you'll own nothing and like it" crap was repeated constantly out of the same fear? Well the smart ones got out, at small loss, and the rest are in a bad way right now due to the decrease in RE prices. So it was incredibly scary when things were going well and prices were increasing, but the companies left holding the bag face exponential impacts when that reverses (and it always does, see part 1). Same thing with the RE crisis.

The third issue is that the economy at large is still dominated by small decisions made by hundreds of millions of participants over and over. You see this, again, with the 2 RE examples above. While corporate ownership of single family residences increased, the larger market of individually-owned SFRs still dominated the market. It was the mass of decision-making at the individual level that caused RE prices to fall and put the institutional investors in a bind. Same as the 2009 crash. Ultimately, the consumers who took out too many loans they couldn't afford became the variable that caused the crash.

Some of it is cultural, some is pure economics. Not sure how much to attribute to each.

I may be hopelessly naive but I believe you’ve described a minority of the current American labor pool. Yes the terminally online are having a mental health crisis but I don’t think most people are that way. Maybe I’m wrong

If a young person is willing to work hard and stay focused, the opportunities today are incredible. Chipotle has a clear path to $100K in just a few years for those who put in the effort. The military offers stability, training, and purpose. Airlines are investing heavily in pilot programs because demand is so high. My nephew’s company is developing data centers and can’t find enough skilled workers to fill great-paying roles. I could go on and on.

Yes, there are challenges in certain areas — but much of what people call a “lack of opportunity” really comes down to mindset. The rewards are still there for those willing to put in the time, learn a trade, and make the long-term sacrifices that build real success.

quote:

---

I may be hopelessly naive but I believe you’ve described a minority of the current American labor pool. Yes the terminally online are having a mental health crisis but I don’t think most people are that way. Maybe I’m wrong

---

Terminally online and immigrants elected Mamdani

quote:

---

Will the wealthy have a better standard of living? Absolutely they will. But, it’s the relative improvement of all classes that is most important.

---

And with our current SOL, a literal trillionaire American's SOL is only slightly better than a welfare queen's SOL.

And our Welfare Queens are actual queens compare to the poor in the Congo or India or Bangledesh or Russia