In terms of economics specifically, in what way have things "gotten better"? Purchasing power has collapsed, the poor sentiment here seems the correct sentiment to me.
But is this actually true, or just something that declining economic sentiment in the newspapers has led us to believe? People are consuming more food, more education, more square feet of house, more travel. My sense is that is surprisingly hard to find a quantitative signal that purchasing power has collapsed.
Maybe it is just that positional goods (access to the best neighborhood in the best city) get harder to obtain as the population grows?
It's important to note that calories and food consumption aren't necessarily the same. We have seen a lot of no-calorie or low-calorie sweeteners and stuff. Diet sodas seemed to be a big deal around that timeframe, as did "low fat" foods (some of which were just lower fat than before or where heavily processed to remove fats).
I mean, real wages have stagnated or declined over the past 50 years.
Sure, we're eating more food, but it's increasingly garbage. Yes, we have more education, but the quality has gone down and is really only a response to the barriers to entry that have increased for most professions. It does seem travel has increased and new houses are bigger, but these seemed to be aligned to a particular class of person. I doubt the middle class is doing much of that. Perhaps the increase in income in equality is reflected by a larger upper class skewing those metrics.
If you want to argue that real wages have stagnated, you need to argue that real GDP has stagnated.
> Yes, we have more education, but the quality has gone down and is really only a response to the barriers to entry that have increased for most professions.
Yes, that is a problem. See 'The Case against Education' by Bryan Caplan.
> I doubt the middle class is doing much of that.
What's your definition of the middle class in this context? Have you checked any statistics?
> Perhaps the increase in income in equality is reflected by a larger upper class skewing those metrics.
The first few decades after the second world war were really rough. But fortunately, global equality has massively improved in the last few decades.
Numerically, that's mostly due to China (but also India and recently Africa) first falling behind and then starting to catch up.
There was probably never a time since at least the Industrial Revolution when global consumption was as equal as today, and the situation is set to keep improving.
"If you want to argue that real wages have stagnated, you need to argue that real GDP has stagnated."
What I can argue is that median real wage has stagnated. Distribution matters, unless you truly believe in strict trickle down economics. The vast majority of the increase has gone to high earners.
"Have you checked any statistics?"
Plenty of stats out there if you want to look. One easy one is that median home income requirements exceed that of median household income by more that 25%. Most new houses are significantly above the median in cost and size, pricing out the middle class even farther.
"There was probably never a time since at least the Industrial Revolution when global consumption was as equal as today, and the situation is set to keep improving."
I'm talking about the US domestically, as were most of your comments. There's still massive per capita consumption differences between the US and most other countries (fuel, food, etc).
> Distribution matters, unless you truly believe in strict trickle down economics.
Nice straw man!
> Most new houses are significantly above the median in cost and size [...]
New houses have almost always been better than existing houses, and have predominately bought by rich people. That's how come the housing stock of 2024 is better and more luxurious than the hovels people used to live in around eg 1800.
When someone build some new luxury homes, a rich person doesn't just magically pop into existence to move in. That rich person used to live somewhere else before, and that other house is now available for someone slightly less rich to move into. There's a whole chain of moves happening.
And I do agree that the US is not building enough for various reasons.
> I'm talking about the US domestically, as were most of your comments. There's still massive per capita consumption differences between the US and most other countries (fuel, food, etc).
Yes, the US is still one of the richer countries. But the gap has started to narrow. And not in the bad way, ie the US falling behind, but in a good way, other people catching up.
Not strawmanning, some people actually belive this. In some limited scenarios or with a limited differences, it can work. Providing there are controls in place to correct any runaway effects.
" and have predominately bought by rich people."
I wouldn't say predominantly. There were times in the recent past when middle class people were the primary builders/buyers of new homes.
"It's the overall quantity of new housing being build that's important."
I understand filtering, but it does have limits. If you have too many rich people building houses that they don't need to sell, or want to keep as investments or vacations homes, them you can end up with problems. Likewise, if the percentage of rich people goes down significantly, many of the larger homes may not be economical for middle class people to live in depending on things like tax or utility costs.
"And I do agree that the US is not building enough for various reasons."
It's not just that they aren't building enough. Population distribution and vacancies are huge problems. Who or what type of entities owns properties, especially in higher percentages in a given area is a problem. But even when they do build, there is still a problem of the new single family housing being almost exclusively larger. There are very few affordable units in most markets for starter or empty nester homes.
There is no evidence for this in the USA except among the poorest, for whom support is being withdrawn by the federal and many state governments.
Pay packets are rising faster than costs have been (and costs are dropping). Now those are statistical measures, but the actual data show that consumers are spending as if the are doing better.
It is true that a secular increase in pricing is quite visible — I suffer from this myself even though I can afford it: a bag of groceries simply costs 30% more than it did a few years ago and that bugs me at the check out. It costs me a smaller percentage of my paycheck, but that feels more abstract.
This is like the perennial crime issue: “Crime is out of control — not where I live, but in all those other places.” Today’s NYT interviewed a bunch of caucus voters for whom they support and why. One guy literally said, “the economy is a disaster. I’m doing fine, but I understand it’s actually terrible.”
> In terms of economics specifically, in what way have things "gotten better"?
50 years ago was 1974. Wasn’t USA just coming out of the Vietnam fiasco at the time? Were economic things really that good? I think there was an oil crisis and people at least in Yugoslavia (where my parents were kids at the time) could only fuel up at gas stations on alternative days based on license plate.
Oh and if I’m not mistaken that was when Japanese cars started flooding the US market and US car manufacturing began its downward spiral into oblivion. The beginning of the end for places like Detroit.
Also while people talk about partisan divide, that was the tail end of 15 years of domestic assasinations, bombings, and political kidnapping (e.g. the SLA).
My kids talk about how this is the worst the US has ever been, but I point out that there was a whole civil war and things were abysmal before that (overt genocide and slavery, child labor, political violence). And when the Baby Boomers were the “gen z” of the time, it was pretty selfish and shitty.
It depends on where you are in the world, but inflation in the U.S. is mostly under control, which is a huge improvement. Employment is very high. Real wages are actually stable, at least over the recent short term. This is a huge improvement over the pandemic-era difficulties.
Over the long term, though, the percentage of wealth going to the top 1% has dramatically increased, which is a root issue that is not improving. (The vast majority of us would be far-better off if there were higher taxes on the richest Americans.)
But is this actually true, or just something that declining economic sentiment in the newspapers has led us to believe? People are consuming more food, more education, more square feet of house, more travel. My sense is that is surprisingly hard to find a quantitative signal that purchasing power has collapsed.
Maybe it is just that positional goods (access to the best neighborhood in the best city) get harder to obtain as the population grows?