Hacker News Reader

Comment by startuprules | Hacker News Reader

"all this doom talk about a worldwide depression." Pretty sure I'm one of the only few posters here that would say the words 'great depression'. and 'voldemort'.

"It's depressing" I know it is. But we as a population have to realize we are in a depression, not just a run of the mill recession like the mass media would have you believe, so we can react accordingly and not doom our future offsprings to even greater suffering.

"As long as we're not seeing hyper-inflation, the general population still has food on the table and you can actually think about where you're going to take your holiday this year we're not even close." Hyperinflation, not yet. 25% unemployed in the last depression, but they had soup lines to not go hungry. US has ~20% unemployment, and we have food stamps/unemployment benefits mailed to our house. As for the holiday..well you and I, we're in the lucky 80%.

View on HN

It's not as if the normal conditions are 0% unemployment.

Also, society as a whole is so much richer now than it was in the last 'great depression' that even those that are down on their luck have it comparatively easy compared with 80 years ago. It's a world of a difference.

That doesn't mean there aren't individuals that are on really hard times, but there are only more of them, it's not like the phenomenon is unique to 2010.

No, it's not, but the current situation smacks of systemic job loss rather than cyclical job loss. It's a problem. What happens when people absolutely can't find new jobs? Self-feeding demand destruction?

"No, it's not, but the current situation smacks of systemic job loss rather than cyclical job loss."

Sounds like we're back in the 80's - 'the Japanese are taking our jobs! The robots did it!' and then we went into the 20 most prosperous years humankind has ever known. I hear people cry left and right that today's job loss is systemic, but I hardly see any factual arguments to support that position. Jobs were cut over the last two years, this quarter profits are back up, and if those improved profits repeat themselves for a few quarters the confidence will come back and more people will be hired. A regular business cycle, even if the nature of the drivers is changing.

Now I'm not saying it doesn't suck for those without a job, and I'm sure some people have it really rough, but come on like Jacques says - today's poor (in the West) live lives 10 times better than the kings of 500 years ago. I'm sure that's no consolation for a welfare mom who has to put her children to bed some nights crying because they're hungry, but overall, these are still great times to live in. Let's keep some perspective, put problems in the right context and fix the comparatively small deficiencies rather than cry wolf, pack cans of beans and ammo and head for the mountains.

"I'm sure that's no consolation for a welfare mom who has to put her children to bed some nights crying because they're hungry"

The weird thing is that it is more likely that mom and those kids suffer from chronic obesity, at least in the U.S. Doesn't change the fact, though, that the poor face much greater health risks than the affluent when it comes to nutrition. Just that the nature of those risks has changed, and take longer to manifest themselves.

When I was driving around in Northern Michigan in 2002 I realised that I'd been 'had' by hollywood and their depiction of rural America. Poverty was pretty common, people living in trailers rather than houses, bad education etc.

The difference between then and now is that some of the people that were affluent then are feeling a little bit of the heat right now and they're scared shitless. But given a slight economic upturn they'll forget about all that and it's back to business as usual. Except for the people that had it bad in 2002, they'll continue to live in a way that a civilised country ought to be ashamed off.

There is no crisis, there is only a totally weird distribution of wealth that has temporarily gotten a bit weirder. If we really wanted then we could solve this problem, but all the majority wants is to return to the situation of 5 years ago.

"we're back in the 80's " We're not. Baby boomers were in their prime during that time, therefore consumption still increased over time, and innovation still thrived. Now, the biggest consumer market in the world is disappearing, with no comparable replacement in sight.

"10 times better than the kings of 500 years ago." Yes, but both you and jacquesm are confusing technology advancement with an economic phenomenon, which is defined by high structural unemployment rate and many business failures

"pack cans of beans and ammo and head for the mountains." Nobody says you have to do that. 75% of the people that lived through the great depression lived a normal but frugal life. However, if/when the dollar suffers from hyperinflation, that's another story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com