Just throwing this out there…why are people so wrong about inflation? Yeah, it was a potential problem for a while there, but it never got out of hand, so let’s take the win; the post COVID recovery wasn’t slow like the recovery from Bush’s recession, which I believe contributed to people being willing to listen to Trumps message in 2016. The median American legit was hammered and kinda forgotten. Anyway, enough of me defending Biden’s record. Food went up a lot, especially eggs due to that disease from a couple years back. And gas was never gonna stay as low as it was when nobody was driving to work. Outside of that, inflation really was never a policy issue; supply chain disruption was inevitable, and it caused periodic shortages of this or that consumer sector. But in addition, CEOs periodically issue press releases that blame inflation for setbacks. And here’s another instance. Here’s the article where the Nestle CEO cites less consumer spending in food for results. First couple of paragraphs should do it. https://www.wsj.com/business/earnin...2?st=h1srqh&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink And here’s the chart showing reality Ok, that didn’t show up well so here’s the link dammit https://jabberwocking.com/were-all-buying-lots-of-food/ here’s my point…a secondary factor in false public perceptions of inflation is businessmen blaming inflation for weak quarterly reports, and of course no contextualizing because the media can’t dig even a foot below the surface.
Small quibble. That disease “a couple of years back” has not gone away. Isn’t going away. People in close contact are occasionally getting this bird flu, and cullings are still happening. A couple million hens were culled in Utah last week. Epidemiologists are very concerned about this virus. Could be bad.
Interesting to know. The price of eggs thing was a good example of anti journalism. How often was the price of eggs used as an example of inflation? All the damn time. The GOPs pushed that line because that’s what politicians do, but the MSM didn’t have to just catapult the propaganda.
We've talked about this before, but "inflation" as a term is pretty loosely used. Historically, we've mostly talked about structural, long run inflation. Which has been pretty low in the US (2-3%/year) for so long that's now assumed to be the norm. What's happened since Covid appeared has tended to be short run price spikes due not to structural issues in the US economy, but broader global issues, such as supply chain problems or the shit Putin does. There's also been the bird flu, the effects of stimulus check spending, and Covid-era spending patterns that flipped overnight away from (for example) experiential consumption (travel, restaurants, theaters) to buying lots of stuff that would be "consumed" at home (Peloton trainers, building out a home bar set-up, renovations, etc., etc., etc.). None of that has much to do with the way the US economy works, Biden policies, etc. It's mostly just a reflection of what happens with an interlocked global economy experiences a pandemic. Still, to the media and the general US population, it's just "inflation." Prices do sometimes come down, of course. Like for lots of barely used Peloton bikes. But once prices ratchet up, businesses are loathe to lower them if they can get away with it. So, sure, prices are higher today than they were 4 years ago. And you must acknowledge that, for some people, those marginal increases hurt, whether you use the term inflation or not. But as I've said before, the broader issue here is that the working poor and lower middle class in the US have been accepting economic policy table scraps for decades, while enormous tax breaks have gone to the most wealthy. Pensions have withered. The social safety net has been weakened. Healthcare costs in our for-profit model and the cost of higher education have exploded (not just over the past 4 years, of course). And so, despite living in the wealthiest country in the world, 50% of Americans hit retirement age with no savings and the average credit card balance in the States is about $9,000 (also, not recent occurrences). So when the media bleats on about the price of eggs or gas being 75 cents/gallon higher than it was X years ago, and therefore implies that that's the problem, it's not. Foundational, purposeful inequities in our economy are the problem. Meaning that, when tens of millions of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, prices for food, energy and housing don't need to go up much before they're in a crisis situation. But the true crisis isn't due to mostly short term price bumps. It's due to the fact that tens of millions of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, have nothing in their savings accounts, may well be carrying around four figures of bad debt, and are one car repair or extended illness away from fiscal disaster. Meanwhile, the world's wealthiest man whines that he's "********ed" if Donald Trump loses. Poor baby.
And yes, bird flu can cause price spikes. But BIG CHICKEN also does this: As of 2020, the five biggest egg companies controlled between 36% and 40% of all egg-laying hens in the United States, according to a recent report by Farm Action, a group that fights corporate control of the food system. Cal-Maine Foods, America’s biggest egg producer, controls about one-fifth of national egg sales following multiple acquisitions. When egg prices spiked to record highs in early 2023, Cal-Maine’s profit skyrocketed 718%. Cal-Maine did not respond to a request from CNN for comment. “High egg prices in 2022 and 2023 were a product of price-gouging by dominant egg producers, who used the cover of inflation and avian flu to extract profit margins as high as 40% on a dozen loose eggs,” the Farm Action report concluded. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/25/busi...ices in 2022,the Farm Action report concluded.
Things that you don’t know if you’re a Republican: If we did the exact same thing, but invested only during the 32 years of Democratic presidencies, we would have again done well… exceptionally well. Our $10,000 would have grown to approximately $570,000. pic.twitter.com/6TenMIbbmi— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) October 18, 2024 A difference of 1.1% per year might not sound significant, but if you compound it over the course of a 40-year working career, it compounds to 50% more total growth.— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) October 18, 2024 Third, Democrat Barack Obama. Upon entering the White House in January 2009, the deficit was running at an annual rate of about $1.4 trillion. At the end of his eight years, in January 2017, the deficit had declined to approximately $600 billion.— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) October 18, 2024 Trump’s proposal to repeat that policy means he will seek needed tax revenues elsewhere: enormous “across the board” tariffs—20% to 60%—that will hurt the middle class and hammer those who aspire to join the middle class.— Ben Wikler (@benwikler) October 18, 2024
So going back a century to end homelessness… https://www.vox.com/housing/378928/...ions-homeless-microunits-coliving-rent-tenant Their plan centers on converting offices into co-living, dorm-style units, featuring private “micro-apartments” around the perimeter of each floor, with shared kitchens, bathrooms, laundry, and living spaces in the center. This model would not only reduce construction costs by 25 to 35 percent compared to traditional office conversions, but it would also offer rents affordable to people earning well below the area’s median income, and not require hefty security deposits, lowering barriers to entry even further. ————————- At the turn of the 20th century, as US cities rapidly expanded, immigrants, day laborers, and factory workers gravitated toward downtown urban areas, often finding temporary, cheap housing. Small, inexpensive rooms could easily be rented for a day, a week, or longer. Some individuals “boarded” in private homes, while others stayed in ultra-cheap hotels called flophouses. These flexible and communal housing arrangements became widely known as single-room occupancies (SROs). After World War II, as middle-class white families left cities for spacious new suburban homes, SROs were increasingly stigmatized, viewed as shoddy housing for the poor and deviant. By the 1950s, cities like New York began passing laws to ban SRO construction and to prevent the conversion of existing homes into smaller units. By the 1970s, SROs were regularly vilified in the media, despite still serving as crucial housing for hundreds of thousands of people, including those with mental illness who were booted from the deinstitutionalization of asylums. Over time, cities incentivized landlords to convert their existing SROs into luxury apartments, resulting in the destruction of 1 million affordable units between the mid-1970s and 1990s. The idea that cities may have erred in banning these lower-cost housing options has been percolating in urbanist discussions for more than a decade, especially as the homelessness crisis has worsened. The Furman Center at NYU argued in a 2018 report that reintroducing SROs could help address the affordable housing shortage.
New Orleans could certainly do that. Lots of empty office space and a big shortage of affordable housing. I don't know where the money would come from, though.
It could help with affordable housing, but you're not going to convince commerical real estate investorrs to care about that
Seems odd they'd nail employees for this unless it was just an excuse to trim the fat Ernst & Young has fired a group of U.S.-based employees for taking part in two online training sessions at the same time, saying it took disciplinary action against workers found to have broken the consultancy's ethical rules. https://t.co/opAxVvD8hl— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 22, 2024
SEC has come down hard on accounting firms with huge fines for what they viewed as unethical training practices (sharing, etc). I guess this is a bit of the fallout.
Commercial real estate players will care if it's profitable, and with the right incentives from local government it can be. I think it often is the local authorities who don't want to see the affordable housing within their jurisdiction.
It would really work here in NOLA. The vacant office space is right near the French Quarter, where lots of low income service workers are employed (in restaurants, bars, etc.). These people need affordable housing that isn't a long bus ride from their work. But our mayor is no visionary - right now she is focused on staying out of jail.
I've seen this in documentaries about the housing issues in Korea and Singapur, but hey, it's here too!!! The apartment contains eight pods — the four in Rayson's room, two in the living room, and another room with two pods. There's also a communal bathroom. https://t.co/Di4GhdEuuI— Miami New Times (@miaminewtimes) October 24, 2024
A good way to house the homeless, but I doubt many of the politicians in cities with high homeless population would approve.
It won't be in the short term, which is why they don't care That sounds suspciously like corporate socialism, which is fine for developers when they're getting the incentives ASF - My Brother, I love you - I know you're a smart guy, but what "authorities" don't want affordable housing? Now, the NIMBY folks certainly don't because, well, you know poor & brown people bring their crimining. Authorities are constantly spending resources on policing, assistance, shelter, crime prevention that are a symptom of homlessness, that could simply be better spent on ending homelessness - but that's not profitable, and it's too "socialism"
The city and county authorities. Of course, they are responding to the NIMBY voters, but a leader, even if he/she has no heart, should realize that it's less of a problem for their area to have inexpensive housing than a homeless problem. Unfortunately, public service today is more about winning elections to stay in power than about governing effectively when you are in power. The investors and developers obviously don't give a crap for the most part, but if you are a wise leader you help them make some money because they can be part of the solution. The incentives may be tax breaks, but also they can be the loosening of certain regulations and fastrack approval for specific low income proyects that are sorely needed. Hardly what you'd call socialism.
A wise society will do both. Give the rich their incentive to build low income housing, and give the poor their safety net so they can afford to rent it.
That's because they're not leaders - they're just in it for the immediate and tangible power, small though it may be. And public service has been undermined with the war on expertise and objective study of outcomes. If we actually believed in harm reduction and least cost / highest impact alternatives, we'd be offering a rental & food subsidy. employment training or retraining along with mental and physical health care rather than moving the problem to the next town down the road or using incarceration as housing We don't have wise leadership because we as a society are largely conditioning ourselves to vote for strongmen You're going to have to get more out into the weeds with "loosening of regulations" because everytime we do that, we have these neat little disasters Everything that doesn't profit them personally is socialism to conservatives