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

quote:

---

even if that were true (I doubt seriously that was a plurality of his support)

---

This article sums it up pretty well - ABC news
LINK
One example, with more in the article

quote:

---

Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist, captured 78% of voters under 30 and 66% of those voters 30 to 44 in Tuesday's election, according to ABC News exit polls, conducted by SSRS. Among voters 45 to 64, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo edged out Mamdani, 53% to 47%. A majority of voters 65 and older (55%) voted for Cuomo while 36% voted for Mamdani. Additionally, newcomers to the city were some of the most likely voters in the state to vote for Mamdani, with 81% of those who have lived in New York City less than 10 years supporting him, the exit polls found.

---

More stats in the article that support the immigrants idea. The young voters being the terminally online ones.

quote:

---

How does that affect the national economy?

---

NYC is the canary in the coal mine. It’s a leading example of what will happen in other major cities on the coasts. It’s also a huge amount of the US economy as the largest US city. Mamdani didn’t run on just housing costs, he ran on food costs (govt run grocery stores) and other socialist ideas. All things people jump to when they given up on improving themselves within the economy and instead turn to the government to provide

quote:

---

Hot take: The percentage of wealth controlled by the rich is a useless stat.

---

Yep. That stat is 100% pushed by jealousy, not bc it actually means anything. The rich may get richer, but the standard of living also continues to improve for the poor. Our poor used to be in rags trying to survive hard winters. Now our poor are in designer clothes with free food and constant streams of entertainment at their fingers

quote:

---

Thoughts?

---

quote:

---

there are now more private-equity firms in the U.S. than there are McDonald’s restaurants

---

That stat -- more private-equity firms in the U.S. than there are McDonald’s -- would point to more diversification in the arena, not less.

The only new aspect to any of this is more ready access to investment resources. Years ago, trade transactions ran $200 in & $200 out. IOW if I wanted to invest $1K in GM, the buy would cost me $200 ... and the subsequent sale would cost another $200. Those transactions were impossibly expensive for the everyday investor.

Such services/opportunities were resources were only useful to elite investors. Then came the novelty of mutual funds, followed in close order by discount brokers at $19/per transaction. At that point, folks could realistically invest in $1K-$2K rather than $10K-$25 aliquots.

Rewarded saver income groups dropped from the 0.1% to the 1% the the top 10% and beyond.
Meaning?

So while salaries keep pace with COL, as per historic norms, if savings/investments in the markets outstrip inflation, folks taking advantage will do disproportionately well.

In 1970, about 10% of the population owned stocks.
Now, with no-fee brokerage transactions, and IRAs, ~65% own stocks.

Unsurprisingly, the larger the portfolio, the generally larger the outperformance of the general population. Yet the general population wealth continues to grow in accordance with historic levels.

Repeat ... general US population wealth continues to grow in accordance with historic levels.

In other words a $15/hr 1990 salary now might pay ~$40/hr. It's a 4-fold increase nominally, but only a slight increase over par, in real terms.

However, folks who took advantage of investment accessibility, would have significantly increased net worth and annual income relative to those who didn't.

Despite slight improvement of the baseline group, the investment/savings group would significantly outperform them.


Hence, the wealth gap is not indicative of falling off at the low end ... quite the opposite. The wealth gap is indicative of upward mobility disproportionate to the historical norm.

quote:

---

Are they improving?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

We have an entire generation coming out of college that was sold a bill of goods about how to achieve success in life.

---

You're partially right here. Yes, we've got an entire generation coming out college that's been sold a bill of goods, but what they've been sold is "you are an economic victim and you'll never live as well as your parents - and it's someone else's fault". It's utter nonsense, but they fervently believe it.

quote:

---

I think we are approaching a dire situation.

---

We could be, but the root of it all is political rather than economic.

quote:

---

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.

---

One question that never gets asked in these interviews is: Who will consume all this extra productivity that AI and robots will create? If ppl aren't working, they will not have the funds to buy the items being made.

Would that not inevitably kill the economy and the businesses creating it?

quote:

---

Who will consume all this extra productivity that AI and robots will create?

---

productivity in the sense that the same output can be produced in less time with lower overhead…ie: higher profit. Which is capitalism at its core. There will always be a market for the product it just might not be that many will participate in that market. To take your question further, it should be asked this way: if fewer people will be needed to produce market goods, and less volume at a higher profit is the goal, shouldn’t it follow that fewer people will be needed to consume them? Then you get into the existential issue that AI hints at currently, that is…there are far too many people on this planet already and there will reach a point where a good number of them won’t be “needed” for anything, at all. Then what?