The other side of this to remember is that highly compensated employees are still subjects to this reality.

The numbers themselves dont actually matter. It doesnt matter if highly compensated to you means $88k or $150k annual compensation, $450k or $750k.

If a single earner cant buy a home outright in 5 years in that area, then the compensation isn't high enough compared to when wages were keeping up. There was a housing shortage in the 1970s too, so the supply side isnt a worthwhile deflection.

The oppression contest and olympics from the masses earning way less isn't really useful because that just conveniently perpetuates the reality.

> There was a housing shortage in the 1970s too, so the supply side isnt a worthwhile deflection.

Uh, source on the housing shortage in the 1970s being even remotely close to this level?

Because, yeah, demand outstripping the heck out of supply is the "deflection" I'd pick.

[1] is a bit noisy because it's monthly data, but if you give it a 12-month moving average, it definitely seems like housing availability was substantially above current levels from about 1973-1992.

I'm curious if there are any theories besides wage stagnation that caused that change?

[1]https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSACSR

Hm. I'm not sure that is actually really measuring supply so much as liquidity.

Regardless, landlords set the price. They always had the opportunity to post ridiculous prices, and they bring them to the price people accept. They dont have to go to the edge of what someone would accept. But they do.

The same tech worker (or whoever a local municipality happens to be pointing fingers at) would pay $1200/mo in one area, or $7500/mo in the other area. A wealthy class of people have always existed that can pay rent or mortgage or own at pretty much any price.

The landlords are the greedy ones - the neighbors and corporations that were already there for the most part. I’m not arguing for anything (in case someone mistakes this for a rent control argument), just have been in enough cities to hear it all.

Landlords are price takers, not price makers. The market for apartments is highly competitive.

If that was true, apartment pricing would be flat or even trending down, as landlords would compete on price.

But they don't. Instead, landlords fight against the construction against additional housing so they can limit supply and increase prices.

I had a 900 sq foot, 2br, 1 bath apartment in the suburbs in 2012 that was $800/month. Each annual lease renewal was a higher price. When I moved out in 2015, the price was $950 at the time. If I had renewed, it would have been $1,100/month. That apartment now is $1,500/month. In less than 10 years, that apartment has doubled in cost.

Rising prices do not indicate a competitive market.

Rising prices have nothing to do with whether it is a competitive market.

I agree with most of the rest of your comment, but none of that means that the landlords are price setters.

Nor does it show that discussing supply is a "deflection."

Supply and demand is a factor. You can talk about it. It is not a unique enough factor to this time period. I feel like you wanted someone to acknowledge that.

Perhaps property sales and rentals should require attestations about who offered what price and we can use that data to consider deterrents or levies on those who moved the price up from the prior owner or tenant. Sure there are some prospective occupants that will say a higher price just to skip the queue, I dont think they are really the majority of people even when well funded transplants descend upon a town. I think the majority just take whatever the landlord offers.

> I think the majority just take whatever the landlord offers.

Taking the price offered for a particular property is not the same as ignoring prices. Apartment shoppers search for the combination of quality and price that best satisfies their preferences. I have a hard time imagining an alternative. Would that be going to an apartment search engine and simply picking the first result, regardless of quality and price?

When I go to the grocery store, I don't negotiate with the cashier. That doesn't mean grocery stores aren't competing with each other.

Yes and the shoppers find one, the trend is that the unit they find and pick - no matter what the shopper lands on - was rented higher than the last time, because the landlord set it higher than the last time. This didn't have to occur, the landlord could have done the prior price, the lower price, even in the face of demand and people willing to close quickly at the new higher price.

Why would the landlord choose to rent at below market rates? I think we've drifted from the question of whether the rental apartment market is competitive.

If a landlord chooses to consistently rent below market rates, for whatever foolish reason, then they'll probably wind up selling the building to someone who knows what the market rate is. It might take a while, but it'll happen eventually.

The point is to place the gentrification blame on the landlords instead of the people who happen to be able to afford the stated price

I wouldn't blame anyone for gentrification. It's just a thing that happens.

> If that was true, apartment pricing would be flat or even trending down, as landlords would compete on price.

It is possible to have rising prices in a competitive market. For example, the automobile market is competitive and experiences rising prices. When I was shopping for an apartment not long ago, I saw several signs advertising discounts. This is evidence that landlords compete on price. However, lack of advertised discounts would not be evidence of a monopoly.

I don't get why minimum wage isn't tied to the CPI by default. I supposed there's a risk of it creating a positive feedback loop, but only a small portion of the workforce is paid at minimum wage. It seems capricious for minimum wage to only be increased when the legislative branch decides it's popular enough to fight for.

Because both parties are owned by oligarchs who would lose money if that happened.

Minimum wage hikes chew through profits and profits are pretty much the #1 legislative priority because that's the primary concern of those doing the campaign financing.

Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money.

American politics is the art of trying to shape public opinion just enough to be compatible with the desires of campaign financers.

The biggest gun manufacturer you can buy stock in is Ruger (RGR) with a market cap of 1.17B. Add Smith & Wesson and you're at 2B. Throw in Vista Outdoors which owns many of the top US ammo brands (plus some minor firearm and accessory brands) and you can get the total up to 4.3B.

I'll multiply that by 10 to guesstimate privately held companies, local gun stores, and the rest of the long tail. So let's say we're at $43 billion for the whole gun industry in the US.

Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics? Snapchat alone is valued at $72B. Ford is $80B. Pfizer is $330B. Dollar General is $51B. Heck, Office Depot is worth more than S&W or Ruger.

I remember reading an article on how relatively cheap it is to "buy" politicians, on the order of just a hundred thousand dollars of donations in some cases, for favorable votes on relevant bills and whatnot.

I would assume if normal,everyday citizens started banding together to buy votes the corporations would up the ante and price us out pretty quickly, but as things stand right now there's no point without competition. Power of the free market baby!

It "costs" that much because that's just the monetary value. The value of the connections required to get that dinner is where the real cost is.

Yeah, that's weird in perspective. Snapchat's valuation doesn't give them buying power, but Apple has nearly 200B cash on hand -- they could theoretically buy and close down all of these manufacturers and test the hypothesis that Big Gun is causing all the shootings.

Theoretically, could Apple buy S&W and…just shut it down? Would the government allow it? Curious…

Most arms manufacturers have contracts with the government, including contracts to operate govt-owned ammunition factories.

Even smaller companies that don't make a product with a major govt/ military contract often have contracts as secondary suppliers of 3rd party or military spec'd parts, like scopes, mounts, triggers, etc.

A buyer could shut down a company that holds such a contract, but then it would just go back up for public bid.

Additionally, military standards for ammo are very high, and companies make money selling "factory seconds" (that don't meet military qa/qc, but are otherwise fine) to the public, which is an included perk of these govt contracts. And isn't a negligible fraction of required production.

So even a hypothetical buyer that would meet its contractual obligation to the govt would do so at an additional cost compared a company selling seconds and surplus manufacturing capacity.

In short, the market won't change without major policy change, no matter what major players might be hypothetically bought and shut down.

I imagine that if they bought them all at the same time, it would be seen as anticompetitive. But if they bought them serially, and shut each down before acquiring the next, would that skirt the law? Curious indeed.

From my non-lawyer understanding: the Sherman Antitrust Act and any further bills/amendments aren't exactly explicit on what it means to be "anticompetitive" because it depends on the circumstances, and the writers wanted to allow the definition to adapt to changing circumstances. Regardless of if they buy them all at once, or buy and shutting them down serially, it's still arguably "anticompetitive". It's ultimately up to the courts to decide (if the FTC presses charges).

Sell consumers guns at silly prices, but only works if you hold it correctly...

> Snapchat's valuation doesn't give them buying power

This isn't true in practice. Sure, company stock is not as great as the almighty US dollar, but can be used to purchase other companies, and its valuation directly affects how much cash the company can raise.

as long as there is a market for guns another company will just step into its place. Much like as long as there is a market for drugs new dealers step up fast as you can arrest them.

>Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics?

relevant: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in...

>all donations to all candidates, all lobbying, all think tanks, all advocacy organizations, the Washington Post, Vox, Mic, Mashable, Gawker, and Tumblr, combined, are still worth a little bit less than the almond industry. And Musk could buy them all.)

Good article. It's amusing how one throw-away statement didn't hold up:

> As rich as Elon Musk is, he’s only one of five hundred billionaires, and some of the others are even richer.

>Isn't that kind of podunk scale for an industry to have a rock solid hold on US politics?

Not when a Constitutional Amendment makes that industry "too big to fail" because its thesis on the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms depends on there being an industry manufacturing arms to begin with (at least at modern scale,) and when the industry overwhelmingly supports one political party, driving animosity with fear-based rhetoric against the other.

You just don't have the same intersection of identity politics, culture and even religion with any other industry in the US that you do with guns, even if the money spent elsewhere is greater.

The individual right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of all free people. It doesn't depend on the existence of the small arms industry. When the US Constitution was written there was hardly even an industry; most firearms were craft built.

> When the US Constitution was written there was hardly even an industry; most firearms were craft built.

You mean at the dawn of the industrial revolution, before which, you know, everything was craft built?

Yes that's what I mean.

We live in the 21st century, not the 18th century. If liberty requires that access to guns be a universal and inalienable right, then the capacity to manufacture and provide guns must scale with the population, and a small arms manufacturing infrastructure is necessary now to supply 300 million Americans with the access to firearms that the Constitution deems necessary for the US to remain a free state. Otherwise liberty diminishes because fewer guns wind up in fewer hands.

The Second Amendment does very much depend on the existence that industry, because if the government were to allow small arms manufacturing to fail, it would be de facto abridging the people's right to keep and bear arms. It's the only industry that has to exist in the US, by fiat.

If what you're saying were true, it would mean that manufacturing guns and/or ammunition for anything other than personal use could be made illegal without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment. Which is absurd.

Apparently, this can be pursued at the State level, so it may not be unconstitutional.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/HD4192/Cosponsor

This entire thread is why gun control constantly keeps existing as an issue, you two people who should be political allies are now splitting hairs over relatively minor issues compared to the cost of healthcare and wage stagnation

>You just don't have the same intersection of identity politics, culture and even religion with any other industry

I think this kind of monolithic homogenous group is fiction. I hear the same thing from other people about tech. Both sentiments lack a nuanced perspective.

Guns are almost a drug to the fading significance (psychologically, economically, politically) of the middle class white male. It's phallic, it makes you feel powerful and safe, it goes boom, and it is intimately tied to the mythos of the United States of America (well, and the Confederate States of America).

The amount of guns purchased by "gun nuts" reminds me of the stats on alcohol consumption: something like 80% of alcohol is consumed by alcoholics.

So you can mobilize a very rabid base politically.

Also, the gun manufacturers are tied in with the military and the diplomatic powers that be of the US (aka THE power brokers of the US government and the world).

> Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money.

This is ... derailing. If Americans didn't love guns, they wouldn't go and buy guns. There is close to 400 million unregistered firearm in the USA. I don't think it's only Republican's. The companies who make guns will try to protect their business but at this point they are just secondary.

Also both Canada and Finland are in the top 10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous.

> A person with a gun is not necessarily dangerous. An idiot with a gun is. An idiot without is still as dangerous.

just adding some facts here -- 1.2% of gun deaths were accidents https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...

Canada and Finland and very different rules and regulation around ownership and licensing and what you can and cannot do with them.

A person with a fun is dangerous, whether they are an idiot not.

It's the same as all code having bugs, regardless of whether the programmer was skilled

By that same logic, a person with an oil truck is more dangerous. Yet, we trust these people to drive these things in broad daylight?

Truck drivers are licensed. Twice, actually.

> Same reason gun control wont happen no matter how many people get killed - ultimately its because gun manufacturers would lose money.

Depends on what you mean by gun control though. Many (myself included) are pro 2nd Amendment so it's not just the gun lobby/NRA who oppose some (not all) regulation.

I guess my point is that gun control (whatever that means) won't happen not only because of gun lobbyists but because many Americans support gun ownership.

It's not the tail wagging the dog, though. The large contingent of Americans who throw their political weight in an organized way behind gun ownership as a point of principle were rallied by the gun manufacturing industry. It wasn't organic.

It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries.

> It's not the tail wagging the dog, though. The large contingent of Americans who throw their political weight in an organized way behind gun ownership as a point of principle were rallied by the gun manufacturing industry. It wasn't organic.

Idk exactly what you mean by organic, but if it means what I think you're trying to say, idk what's more organic than creating the Second Amendment which was created long before there were gun lobbyists.

> It didn't happen in Australia or New Zealand or the UK even though gun enthusiasts exist in all of those countries.

America is a different country isn't it?

> idk what's more organic than creating the Second Amendment which was created long before there were gun lobbyists.

I think the whole debate over gun control is not as important as people make it out to be, so I don't have a huge dog in this fight.

That said, 2A was not interpreted (at least by the courts, but also it seems from historical research, in public discourse) the way it has been until the late 90s and early 21st century, particularly in DC v. Heller.

Historically, there was generally broad latitude given to cities to have arms restrictions going back to the 19th century. My guess is that the crack epidemic and associated things in the late 80s and 90s is what shifted attitudes here.

But that ability to organize is also protected by the US Constitution. You may consider it unethical, but it’s not illegal.

Replying to Pydry, adjacent to parent:

None of those countries enshrine as law the concept of self defense in the form of gun ownership, though. The "right to bear arms" is considered the fundamental way to protect against tyranny in the United States. One of the founding fathers (Jefferson?) even posited that revolution was a responsibility of the people when a government became too overbearing.

Couple that with the Judeo/Christian concept of "value of life" and you have a people (who, though not Christian in practice, inherited these worldviews) that believes life is sacred and will fight for even the ability to defend themselves and others. Do note that the Judeo/Christian worldviews that benefited the West have been attacked and eroded over the last century and a half, and that the sanctity of human life is actually a big question mark for many. But there remain a staunch few that will continue to hold to their ideals.

I am not convinced that "Judeo/Christian worldviews" have led to a more developed or dominant West than would have developed in the absence of those worldviews.

> gun control

We must also keep in mind that the most likely person to be killed with a firearm is the person firing it-- ie suicide. Furthermore we have to question what percentage of the ~37% of gun deaths as murders would be curbed by gun controls, particularly what percent of those murders will happen via an illegal firearm or just some different weapon (are we going to have knife control, poison control, strangle control...)

IMO America has a (largely male) mental health issue more than a murder/firearm issue, I suggest we treat the root not the symptom. How? apropos to the thread one potential solution is we might give people some economic hope via a good working wage. (Perhaps it's not the right solution, but still emphasize the roots not the symptoms)

some sources for food for thought:

[1]: https://bigthink.com/the-present/switzerland-high-gun-owners... Switzerland has lots of guns but few mass shootings

[2]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miya...

[2]:

And the reason countries like NZ seem to be able to quickly and efficiently pass sweeping gun reform laws is because it’s not effecting any major gun producers bottom line. In America that is very much not the situation.

Additionally, even if profits were a moot point, the 2nd amendment is a culture war wedge issue that runs bone-deep for the average American.

The gun industry started the culture war for profit and fans the flames for profit.

Take away the profit margins and have a few more mass shootings and I imagine the 2nd amendment would melt away as easily as the 4th did.

Even if we entirely ended the manufacture and sale of guns, there are far too many guns already in private possession for it to matter (I.e. there are more guns in circulation right now than there are people in this country). As a gun owner, it is obvious that to eliminate mass shootings we would have to eliminate private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms. That is so incredibly far outside the realm of possibility. The ability to engage in a mass shooting is not going to change; we need to engage the issue from other angles.

A few more mass shootings? HA! A few more at this point would be like a raindrop in the ocean. It's obvious that's not a factor for anyone with any real political/legislative power here.

I disagree that it was the gun industry that started the war, but they absolutely fan the flames for profit.

The 2nd amendment will never go away as long as conservatives use it as a wedge issue. It's far too important as leverage, and they've been incredibly successful in cementing it further into law even very recently. My state just passed Constitutional Carry into law this year.

Fresh Air recently aired an interview with former gun industry marketing exec Ryan Busse, about their responsibility in the American culture wars. I can't remember off the top, though, whether he claim they are only fanning it or are the main origins of it. Anyway, an interesting listen.

Conservatives will happily do away with the 2nd amendment if you arm a bunch of black people, and have them constantly open carrying while black

Not sure about your location, I see about a 50/30/20 (white/black/Hispanic)racial mix at my Atlanta Bass Pro gun counter, which about matches this counties’ demographics. People just want to be able to protect themselves; don’t take Brunswick as the norm for everywhere.

They’re referencing how California republicans were lightning fast to legislate away gun rights as soon as the Black Panthers started organizing and flexing their second amendment rights.

The reason NZ can pass any gun law they want is that they do not have the right to own guns written into their Constitution. US are unique in this regard - most of the laws passed would be struck down by the Supreme Court anyway.

Does NZ have an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment?

In the US, States can regulate, even those without strong ties to manufacturers. The fact that many haven’t makes me think the 2A is a bigger issue than profits.

You forgot to mention that the left is mostly funded by anti-gun interests. That is where the majority of gun control legislation comes from. If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win, you push gun control in return.

I also think trying to pin the 'culture war' on gun companies is bizarre. Are you from the US? Your take on this seems like something you would see on MSNBC.

> You forgot to mention that the left is mostly funded by anti-gun interests.

It’s...not.

> If money from Bloomberg or Soros helps you win

Neither Soros nor especially Bloomberg are or especially fund the left; Bloomberg is center-right, Soros is, frankly incoherent; while, yes right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories focus on his funding of organizations to the left of the Republican platform, among the organizations he funds are ones like Cru, the organization known as “Campus Crusade for Christ” before its recent rebrand.

(The Democratic Party is a center-right to center-left coalition party, where dominant power is held by the center-right, neoliberal corporate capitalist faction.)

Inflation at the levels we are seeing it is certainly a problem caused by the pandemic and the reactions to the pandemic.

Markets and corporate profits were at record highs pre-pandemic, and even with any supply chain issues the market and corporate profits are at new all time highs now.

The pandemic is just a convenient scapegoat and excuse for decades of congressional over spending and bad policy ultimately responsible for the current inflation.

Since Clinton the national debt doubled under every administration (Trump was on track if he won a 2nd term). Each administration also had trillion $ bailouts/stimulus bills. Biden already has a trillion $ stimulus ($1.9T), and that is blamed/justified on the pandemic. However, we can already predict the next administration will also have its own trillion $+ bailout/stimulus its just a question of what that will be “blamed” on to justify it.

We also need to stop pretending that flat (i.e. depreciating) wages are normal

but wages aren't flat? In gp's post it's only "flat" when adjusting for inflation, which means it's not depreciating.

Is it not a problem? Wages rose substantially in the years between WWII and the 1970s but isn't that the actual aberration?

That’s part of it. It’s similar to China from the 90’s to the 2020’s. Likely Chinese will not see real wages go up at the same rate in the 2039’s as they did the previous decades.

That said, what’s eating real wage growth is outsourcing. It’s simple. If I can build a fridge by paying workers in China or Mexico $2/hr vs paying a US worker $22/hr in a manufactury plant, my competition will eventually lose market share and shutter if they don’t also move manufacturing to a cheaper labor market.

Without any import taxes to adjust for labor conditions and costs, thus will put downward pressure on stateside labor markets.

People know this. But they ALSO complain of stagnating wages, while at the same time NOT wanting their US manufactured good to be more expensive than those made over seas!

In the post war period the US was manufacturing goods for not just domestic use, but for the entire world. Pretty much all industrial capability was here in that period, so foreigners were forced to buy American goods. Those days are over and are never coming back. Most countries have their own industrial base now. There will never again be american employment in manufacturing like there was in the post war period, even if imports were completely banned.

It’s not only manufacturing though. And we don’t have to export to the world. We just need to support our own manufacturing and our own service workers.

My school janitors used to be able to send their kids to college and afford a humble house. Retail store clerks (Married with Children). All that is now cheap labor --you can't expect to pay a mortgage and send kids to college/uni. You may be able to afford the cheap apartment and beer --you'll probably end up with some addiction, i nthat situation.

These days that janitor is farmed out to some company that hires either cheap foreign labor or sometimes illegal labor. We see this in chicken processing plants too. And people wonder why the middle class is hollowed out. And why black and white working poor are sick and tired or corporate antics.

agree, also look to the tech giants who practice outsourcing. 50%+ of Google's employees are contractors[1], imagine if they were all employees what a brighter future so many families would have and what a gigantic boost to the economy it would create.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/technology/google-temp-wo...

Why do Americans deserve jobs over foreigners who are willing to do them for less?

Every State has the obligation to look after its own citizens. Otherwise, we should organize into a state that will as no other state will look after us. Can I go to Brazil or Russia and say, hey Russia, hey Brazil, you know, I'm neither Russian nor Brazilian and I didn't contribute anything to your country nor my did my ancestors, but I'd like some of your pie.

Also, we can't cry "wages have been stagnant since the 70s" and also want to continue ex-patriating jobs and ability to command better pay.

But what if you compare it to GDP? Production per capita has increased, yet the workers wages have not. I tend to think the “aberration” was due to the increase of private union membership, which has decreased since the 1980s.

When people are exploited systemically, they tend not to turn against their exploiters (which are often hard to identify) but against each other.

I think part of the promise of increasing the quality of life of everyone after WWII wasn't only out of the goodness of the heart, but also to avoid reaching the level of generalized hate that made it possible in the first place.

Could be. It might be that the existence of a substantial middle class, rather than a long tail of poverty, was an anomaly. Of course, we could choose to redistribute wealth to create any shape of curve we desire.

Wages ARE the cost of living. Who do you think make your food, your clothes and your light ? Are you sure it's not your own desires getting ahead of your wage ?

I feel we can do things our grandparents couldnt even dream of (mines remember a time in his French village when horses would collect garbage, horses!) and that our parents suspected only. Hell the fact I can speak English and all it cost was a few taxe raises in education is already money well spent.

Tiring a bit to hear people bemoan a golden era where tv where black and white, religion prevalent, people disconnected, books expensive, knowledge hidden and medicine an embryo of what it is now.

Toil a bit, build more for your children and keep your eyes away from your selfpity.

The idea that those who are falling through the cracks in the system is because they aren't working hard enough is crap. Thanks to the "golden age" you correctly say we live in, automation and globalisation have steadily eroded the value of human labor since the 70s (a big part of why real wage growth has been negative). Thanks in part to financialization and in part to anti-competitive regulations that benefit monopolistic incumbents, growth is increasingly driven by financialization and rent-seeking from capital owners. The fact that you are on HN likely means you benefit from your ability to assist the upper class (billionaires) increase their share of the wealth by diligently creating more and more intellectual property capital. The numbers don't lie, and the numbers show the poor are getting poorer (despite working just as hard), and the rich are getting richer (and none more so than the billionaires who own the intellectual property capital that let's them extract ever-increasing rents in exchange for granting ever-decreasing access to the latest innovations - particularly in pharmaceuticals and technology).

There are costs besides wages.

Eg. Profit, tax, and rent

What’s your wage?

>Worker pay isn’t keeping up with inflation

If this wasn't a predictable outcome when inflation is triggered, it would be imposed by design.