←back to thread

277 points cebert | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.024s | source
Show context
PostOnce ◴[] No.44361768[source]
Theoretically, credit should be used for one thing: to make more money. (not less)

However, instead of using it to buy or construct a machine to triple what you can produce in an hour, the average person is using it to delay having to work that hour at all, in exchange for having to work an hour and six minutes sometime later.

At some point, you run out of hours available and the house of cards collapses.

i.e., credit can buy time in the nearly literal sense, you can do an hour's work in half an hour because the money facilitates it, meaning you can now make more money. If instead of investing in work you're spending on play, then you end up with a time deficit.

or, e.g. you can buy 3 franchises in 3 months instead of 3 years (i.e. income from the 1 franchise), trading credit for time to make more money, instead of burning it. It'd have been nice had they taught me this in school.

replies(42): >>44361792 #>>44361861 #>>44361865 #>>44361871 #>>44361931 #>>44361944 #>>44361950 #>>44362065 #>>44362085 #>>44362133 #>>44362148 #>>44362177 #>>44362254 #>>44364104 #>>44364281 #>>44364325 #>>44364438 #>>44364536 #>>44364685 #>>44364877 #>>44365174 #>>44365292 #>>44365599 #>>44365679 #>>44365774 #>>44366064 #>>44366444 #>>44366485 #>>44366511 #>>44366874 #>>44366996 #>>44367040 #>>44367169 #>>44367332 #>>44368257 #>>44368662 #>>44369054 #>>44369100 #>>44369614 #>>44369775 #>>44371322 #>>44371454 #
lm28469 ◴[] No.44364104[source]
> the average person is using

The "average person" is told from birth to consume as many things and experiences as possible as it if was the only thing that could give their life a meaning. The entire system is based on growth and consumption, I have a hard time blaming "the average person"

replies(11): >>44364189 #>>44364226 #>>44364230 #>>44365054 #>>44365086 #>>44365236 #>>44366742 #>>44367114 #>>44368149 #>>44368689 #>>44381992 #
ljm ◴[] No.44366742[source]
Wages for the average person (working class) typically remain stagnant while cost of living increases, particularly through inflation. I imagine minimum wage would be 25-30 bucks an hour if it did track inflation and that would only serve to keep your purchasing power constant.

Credit, in this sense, is also used to solve a cash flow problem. It’s a bad sign when that credit (or Klarna Pay-in-3 style setups) is applied to basic day to day expenses like buying groceries or other necessities.

Basically the market’s answer to increasing poverty: you’re not getting paid more, so how about we give you a payment plan to spread things out?

replies(3): >>44367007 #>>44367018 #>>44367287 #
bryanlarsen ◴[] No.44367018[source]
That's not true. Wages have generally outpaced inflation as long as we've measured inflation properly. Up until the early 1970s this was very palpable, since the early 1970s the delta has been much lower, wage increases have been very slightly above inflation.

Why does it feel different? 1: the amount of stuff we buy has increased a lot. Anybody who owns what would be considered solidly middle class in the early 1970s will feel quite poor today. 2: financial security is way down.

In the early seventies a middle class family of 6 would own a 1200 square foot house, a single car, a single TV and a single radio would be the sum total of the entertainment electronics they owned, they'd have less than a dozen outfits apiece, they'd eat out about once a month, a vacation to a neighboring state would feel like a splurge, et cetera.

But they were relatively content. 1: they were much better off than their parents and grandparents, who experienced the depression & WW2. 2: they were "keeping up with the Joneses". 3: they had a feeling of financial security due to job security and the fact that serious health events were unlikely to financially devastating.

replies(3): >>44367264 #>>44367551 #>>44368222 #
kiba ◴[] No.44367264[source]
Average American household budgets are dominated by housing, transportation and taxes.

Maybe some of that problem is about spending too much money, but it cannot be denied that housing are unaffordable and that transportation is inefficient and is a mess.

replies(4): >>44367339 #>>44367438 #>>44368442 #>>44370332 #
9rx ◴[] No.44367339[source]
> Average American household budgets are dominated by [...] transportation

Huh? Doesn't the average American live in a city? The whole reason for accepting being squeezed in tightly with other people is so that you don't have to worry about transportation; enabling everything you could ever want and need to be found in short walking distance.

Transportation is for people in rural areas. Yes, it is expensive, but that's exactly why most people left rural areas for the city long ago.

replies(3): >>44367424 #>>44367441 #>>44367745 #
smelendez ◴[] No.44367424[source]
Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. So a car is necessary and often a car per working adult.
replies(2): >>44367778 #>>44394493 #
9rx ◴[] No.44367778[source]
Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers? That completely defies the whole reason for the density. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I question why people are doing it.
replies(5): >>44368125 #>>44368193 #>>44368209 #>>44368747 #>>44368760 #
acuozzo ◴[] No.44368125{6}[source]
FWIW, I grew up in Brooklyn, NY. I know about both urban and suburban living. I now live in Columbia, MD: a suburb from the late '60s planned with high ideals.

My three children each have their own room. They can ride their bicycles on our sleepy street without having to constantly worry about reckless drivers. They can explore the walking trails and wooded areas our community maintains. They can play baseball in one of the nearby fields without having to worry about breaking a car window in doing so.

My wife has a large crafting area. I have an office. We have a home theater. We have a workshop in our garage. We have a large sunroom which opens to a large deck suitable for entertaining many friends at once.

Getting even a fraction of what I described above in a city would cost a fortune.

replies(1): >>44368172 #
9rx ◴[] No.44368172{7}[source]
The benefits of living in the country are obvious. And since the land provides income itself, the extra cost of transportation one has to assume to live in the country is well offset anyway.

Its the weird middle ground that has all of the downsides of the country and all of the downsides of the city all packed into one that we're talking about.

replies(2): >>44368898 #>>44369359 #
1. acuozzo ◴[] No.44368898{8}[source]
> And since the land provides income itself

Hardly. Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale.

replies(1): >>44368988 #
2. 9rx ◴[] No.44368988[source]
> Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale.

You seem a bit confused. While that is more or less true for the farmer, it is that way because the landlord usually takes most of the profit. As is to be expected. They hold all the cards. You can't farm without land. But given that in this scenario you are the landlord, not the one doing the work...

The key to farm profitability is to own your own land free and clear. But, of course, unless you have a high paying job doing something else instead of farming that's really hard to pull off, so most farmers end up renting (either to a landlord directly, or renting money from a lender). That's when you need scale to make up for the vast majority of the profit going to someone else.