This is testable. The profits of car insurance companies should rise (let’s say substantially) in real dollars as accident payouts decrease as a result of the inevitable dominance of autonomous vehicles.
I'm just casually familiar with guns, if I saw an AR-15, I'd call it an AK-47. Or a machine gun. Every single human walking the earth has an iPhone or its replicant.
> I'm just casually familiar with guns, if I saw an AR-15, I'd call it an AK-47. Or a machine gun.
Okay. Sure. Just as there are people who call(ed) every video game console, or even home computer, under the sun "a Nintendo". I wouldn't call that casual familiarity... but I'm not here to argue about it.
> It's good to have a fandom.
I s'pose. If you've thought that's me you're sordidly mistaken; I'm not a gun afficionado but just somebody who's got to shoot short- and long-barreled guns to keep my weapon's permits, which I need if I ever have to carry one on the job. I would describe myself as casually familiar with guns, not more.
The median American has a 401k, yes. The median amount of stock owned is, I believe, $40,000 -- so, at the recommended annual withdrawal rate, that puts you at $1,600/year of spending money.
Let's assume that the stock market 10xes in the next decade, then the median American stock owner can get out $16,000/year.
> Only about 37% of adults hold stocks, bonds, or funds outside of a retirement account.
That's surprisingly high. I know several people with millions in their retirement accounts and nothing outside. It is also not uncommon for people to prefer real estate investment outside of retirement accounts. Both of these groups are wealthy but both would be excluded from this statistic.
> Between 55% and 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and are one large expense or missed paycheck away from homelessness.
This "statistic" is based on definitions so misleading or unrigorous as to be meaningless. Nor is it derived from any of the data sources that are the gold standard for this type of economic research.
US Federal Reserve and BLS studies are broadly recognized authoritative sources for these types of economic statistics. Per these sources, the percentage of American households that have income that is entirely consumed by necessary expenses is 10-15%.
In the US, the median household has a ~$15,000/year surplus after all ordinary (not necessary) expenses per US statistical authorities. This surplus has been growing over time, so it isn't like it is at risk of disappearing either. This data alone obviously contradicts your assertion that most Americans are "one large expense or missed paycheck away from homelessness".
It's a pretty well-known stat that I think originally came from one of Schwab's detailed Modern Wealth Index reports -- which are survey-based so there is likely some inaccuracy; they report 3% margin of error -- but other similar studies generally put the number somewhere between 53% and 63%.
From their methodology:
> The Modern Wealth Index, developed in partnership with Koski Research and the Schwab Center for Financial Research [...] was conducted by Koski Research from January 12 to January 19, 2018, among 1,000 Americans aged 21 to 75. Quotas were set so that the sample is as demographically representative as possible. The margin of error for the total survey sample is three percentage points.
Anecdotally, this percentage makes sense to me based on roughly half of the people in my circles/family/life living paycheck to paycheck, but there's obviously some exposure bias at work there too. It's possible you have some exposure bias as well if that number seems too high for you.
Without an explicit definition of what "paycheck to paycheck" actually means, the survey data can't be taken as accurate. I have no problem believing that for a large portion of the population (perhaps over half) a missed paycheck would be a big problem, but I absolutely do not believe that 60% are a missed paycheck away from homelessness, which is what you originally claimed.
According to some recent data[0], 22% of households earning above $250k report themselves as living paycheck to paycheck. That alone tells me that the term can have very different meanings for different people. Perhaps those high earners mean that after all the taxes, retirement and ESPP deductions are taken out of their paycheck, what's left over is just enough to pay for their lifestyle. That's not what I would call paycheck-to-paycheck. And whatever the definition, I can assure you that 22% of the households in that income bracket are not a paycheck away from homelessness.
If "capital interests" (ugh, capitalism) controlled democracy, please esplain:
- Michael Bloomberg
- Hillary Clinton (both in the 2008 primary and 2016 general)
- Alex Vindman
...
a simple Google search reveals that while there is some threshold amount of dosh necessary to get noticed, _more money != more votes_. To believe otherwise is is willful ignorance. Sometimes your favorite candidate loses because the median actual voter (you know, the guy who actual fills out the form) prefers the status quo for their own reasons and not because they're brainwashed or whatever it is that "capital interests" do to them.
I’m not sure how to reply to your comment since it is almost entirely addressed to some imaginary person and is full of projection. I’ll just add that both parties serve capital.
Conspiracy theories are just as batshit whether they're socialist or fascist. The only difference between yours and the nazi type is that the nazis added the adjective "jewish" to their description of "capital"... but I guess these days the left is doing that too!
There’s no conspiracy theory. Jimmy Carter spent the last decade of his life talking about this. Bernie Sanders talks about this all the time. Noam Chomsky talks about this. Ralph Nader was talking about this forever.
Go listen to Ian Shapiro’s Yale lectures called Power and Politics in Today’s World. It’s an amazing lecture series and you’ll learn a lot.
Though I’m surprised you think it’s surprising left leaning people would criticize the role of capital in politics, since that’s kind of the whole thing with true leftists.
I grew up in South Florida (not a native), and my experience of strip malls and ever widening highways is: if there was a state below Florida, that's where the desperate and unrooted migrants would have kept driving to.
I spent my childhood fishing in a swimsuit every day I could. I loved it. But as an adult, any south of Ocala and east of Gainesville is a cultural wasteland (with cutouts for Miami and Tampa).
I've never met anyone who was sorry they had children, but I've met a lot of people who missed the opportunity (to be fair, I've never met the parents of a violent criminal).
Kids can be hard, especially if you're not a natural, and especially when they're young, but-- it's impossible to describe the fulsome love I have for my kids. I'm not a sentimental person, and probably wouldn't have had them without my wife (which is a funny thing to say). Even when they're a pain and a disappointment, even with the ever present guilt, my kids give me some baseline purpose for free. And the wins are great--"all joy and no fun" as I heard once. The conversations as they become real people. It's impossible to describe and totally worth it.
I don't really expect anyone to casually admit that they regret having children to anyone but their closest confidants, perhaps not even themselves, the social stigma and shame would be unbearable.
I don't know how much research there is on this but anecdotally there are many emotionally absent and neglectful parents out there. They might be able to cope with the way their life is but that doesn't mean that they're good parents (or that they wouldn't do things differently if they got to start over again).
There's also a chance that your child is born with disabilities that demand intensive life-long support. I know that I couldn't cope with that, so even if my general outlook on having children changed some day I could never get past this, for my own good and out of responsibility for my hypothetical child.
Of course there are bad parents. I'm unlikely to encounter them, and even if I did I would probably not associate with them. But I suspect that you and anyone else on this thread offering thoughtful responses, are not the kind of person who would fall into that category.
I only offer my own experience, because I had the same fears as you. One datapoint, but parenting changed me in so many good ways, and the hardships fade from memory.
Even if not all art, once something becomes canonical, it then becomes something that people should be able to easily familiarize themselves with for the sake of an educated and edified citizenry. And indeed, many countries subsidize public libraries and live performances for this very reason. But no state can manage to provide free or nearly-free access to the entire canon, so piracy helps fill the gap.
reply