Comment by venomsnake | Hacker News Reader

Comment by venomsnake | Hacker News Reader

If watched trough historical prism - if 2007 was 1929 - we are at 32-33 now probably.

If you looked into the world back then - there was great revolting against establishment too - no matter the ideology (or actions) in any country during the great depression - they were exchanged for someone else.

The ruling class has 2 responsibilities - economic growth and redistribution and security. They must keep reasonably safe and deliver enough to the people to not starve.[1]

The post 9/11 media frenzy made people feeling permanently insecure - this is something no government can win now. The US now has 2 economies that are lumped together for statistical purposes. The one of them is doing just fine. But its recovery masks the plight of the great unwashed that all the rest of us are.

The people feel the desire to burn the system. Nothing strange with that. Anyway - if the presidential election is Bernie vs Not Trump or Hilary vs Trump - you can completely write off the establishment candidate. Since the voters behind Bernie and Trump seems to hate the current order more than they are loyal to their own party.

The bullying against BS supporters to vote for Hilary in case of her winning the nomination is telling.

[1] Safety and not starving have different meanings depending on society, culture and past experience.

I like the assertion that the US has 2 economies that are lumped together for statistical purposes.

I would imagine there should be some supporting artifacts of this in various reports. Where would one look to see data to support this (two clustered groups experience the world significantly differently).

I would imagine that publicizing this data would help people validate their concerns that no, things aren't going as well as I've been told.

I don't think it's the dividing line used in the parent comment to yours, but one interesting dividing line is people employed full time with benefits vs everyone else.

Maybe a slightly better line would be based on US GDP. Per capita it is ~$53,000, capturing a share of the economy larger than that can reasonably be described as doing ok (of course the line would be different for a household than an individual).

I think a lot of full time workers can still be wage slaves.

Maybe a living wage is a better benchmark. The minimum required to "thrive" with a normal list of opportunities/choices that people can be expected to encounter. E.g., car required if not living in high-density urban environment, raising children, having pets, buying simple furniture, healthy food, internet access, life and house/rental insurance etc. It's all about access to thriving, not access to luxury, and in each place and circumstance that access is different, but living wages can be indexed to all these factors. The more factors included to counter the various axes of oppression the better.

For example, in Canada we have the Canadian Centre for Policy alternatives which publishes living wage data/indexes every year for a number of cities.

A few years back I helped cofound a programming and design worker co-op with a handful of other people and we discussed using such an index to determine salaries for members in different cities. E.g. if the Montreal team gets 4x the local living wage, then the Vancouver team also gets 4x their local living wage, even if the absolute amount appears higher.

I think that is another interesting earning level to look at, but what if the living wage exceeds the per capita GDP (or GDP/work force if you want to better account for children)?

You also don't have Employment at-will and binding arbitration in Canada. The environment for workers in Canada is fairer than in the US.

http://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

That is the first i found. But it is somewhat dated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com