←back to thread

277 points cebert | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
danans ◴[] No.44368747[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?

They don't want complete separation from other people. They want conveniences of the city/metropolis (access to jobs, entertainment, and education) while having a lot of space around their home for recreation & privacy.

They don't want farm work (required for that income) either - it's physically and emotionally hard and margins are thin and fragile depending on the weather.

replies(1): >>44368922 #
9rx ◴[] No.44368922[source]
> They want conveniences of the city/metropolis (access to jobs, entertainment, and education)

But not without having to travel. And once travel is in the picture, you can be to the same places just as fast from a farm as you can from another point in the city. It might be hard to appreciate if you have never lived on a farm, but once you do you'll realize that the highway is unbelievably efficient.

Your point only holds for when that stuff is available within walking distance of one's home. But now we're back to not needing costly transportation, so...

> They don't want farm work (required for that income) either

Where do you get the idea that farm work is a necessary condition to realize an income from farm land? Most farmers (in the legal sense) don't farm their own land, they have other farmers work it through sharecropping/rental agreements.

replies(1): >>44370455 #
danans ◴[] No.44370455[source]
> But not without having to travel. And once travel is in the picture, you can be to the same places just as fast from a farm as you can from another point in the city.

Your phrase "having to travel" is painting with a very broad brush.

There are naturally huge variations in transit time depending on where you live in a metropolis, where you are going, and how you are getting there.

I can walk 15 minutes to a coffee shop and grocery store, drive 20 minutes to a Walmart, and take a train 35 minutes to the office.

All are very convenient and the latter two require transportation.

> Where do you get the idea that farm work is a necessary condition to realize an income from farm land? Most farmers (in the legal sense) don't farm their own land, they have other farmers work it through sharecropping/rental agreements.

Even if you aren't doing the hard labor, you have to want to manage that kind of business. Most people evidently prefer not to, and instead like urban jobs. The last 150 years of urbanization isn't a fluke.

replies(1): >>44370819 #
9rx ◴[] No.44370819[source]
> I can walk 15 minutes to a coffee shop and grocery store

Not to make it sound like a competition, but I can do it in 5 not living in a city. Why does it take so long in a place that should be optimized for keeping everything close by?

> drive 20 minutes to a Walmart

I can be to two different Walmarts given 20 minutes. That is also an unusually long time for a heavily populated area. Are you actually living in a rural area with a train and I misunderstood?

> and take a train 35 minutes to the office.

Okay. You got me there. I don't have a train in my backyard. It would take me 20 minutes to get to the station.

But, to be fair, when I lived in a big city downtown it also took me 20 minutes to get to the station, so perhaps your situation of having a train sitting right outside your door waiting on you is a bit unusual?

That said, perhaps you have included, say, 20 minutes to get to the station, and a few minutes waiting on the train. But in that case is the 5-10 minutes of actual train time really that advantageous? In this scenario you're almost at your destination before you even get on the train. Presumably this isn't what you meant.

> you have to want to manage that kind of business.

You'd have to report your income to the government. What else is there?

The onus will be on the farmer working the land to do everything else. I know that well, because I'm one of those farmers. The industry is much too competitive to think you can make the landowner do anything.

replies(1): >>44372100 #
danans ◴[] No.44372100[source]
> Not to make it sound like a competition, but I can do it in 5 not living in a city. Why does it take so long in a place that should be optimized for keeping everything close by?

I can walk to 3 different ones in 5 minutes - I live in an actual city - but I was trying not to make it about showing off my housing privilege. Note I said "a coffeeshop", not "the nearest coffeeshop".

> I can be to two different Walmarts given 20 minutes. That is also an unusually long time for a heavily populated area. Are you actually living in a rural area with a train and I misunderstood?

Big dense city, "urban residential", not a suburb. 10 feet between my house and my neighbor's. So Walmart is not "nearby" because those tend to be in lower-middle income suburbs. However, 2 Targets & a Costco are a 10-15 minute drive away.

> But, to be fair, when I lived in a big city downtown it also took me 20 minutes to get to the station, so perhaps your situation of having a train sitting right outside your door waiting on you is a bit unusual?

> That said, perhaps you have included, say, 20 minutes to get to the station, and a few minutes waiting on the train.

5 minutes walk to the station. 20 minutes on the train. 10 minute walk to the office. If I time it right, no waiting for the train.

> > you have to want to manage that kind of business.

> You'd have to report your income to the government. What else is there?

I get that you don't do any actual physical labor, but don't you have to negotiate deals with labor suppliers (or laborers), seed/fertilizer suppliers, check on the quality of work and the condition of the land, facilities, and equipment?

If you hire people to do that all for you, then what's the ROI? It's hard to imagine that small-hold farming is as easy (and has similar returns) as buying an indexed fund, otherwise everyone would be dumping their capital into it.

But hey, maybe after reading this comment thread, everyone will!

replies(1): >>44374055 #
1. 9rx ◴[] No.44374055{3}[source]
> I get that you don't do any actual physical labor

Well, I personally do the physical labor (if you call riding around in an air conditioned tractor physical labor). You are right that the landowner doesn't.

> but don't you have to negotiate deals with labor suppliers (or laborers), seed/fertilizer suppliers, check on the quality of work and the condition of the land, facilities, and equipment?

That's on me, not the landowner. Why would the landowner do any of those things? Again, their only job is to count the money.

> then what's the ROI?

For me, mostly the fun. I enjoy it. I do also make pretty tidy financial profit doing it, which is admittedly a great bonus, but I expect I would still do it even if that weren't the case. Not everything in life has to be about money. Sometimes it's okay to bask in the pleasure of a hobby.

> It's hard to imagine that small-hold farming is as easy (and has similar returns) as buying an indexed fund

An index fund will, on average, provide greater returns than renting out your land, albeit with greater risk as greater returns expect. You wouldn't move to the country as some kind of get rich quick scheme.

But, if you've somehow already forgotten what we're talking about, when you are already living in the country for whatever reasons life has found you there, the land provides an income that offsets the cost of the necessary transportation.