If we could just get the cost of housing down it would solve SO many problems. The government should do everything it can to incentivize building affordable housing, or even do it itself.
I used to think like you too, but I stopped when I learned more about those things. Government interference always fails and causes more problems. If that weren't the case, Socialist and other Totalitarian Systems would be thriving, instead of failing over and over again and even within supposedly free market economies in developed countries, you can see that government initiatives pretty much always fail to achieve what they set out to do. Part of it is simply bureaucracy. Not only is it slow and ineffective and attracts inept people who are after cushy jobs and don't want to compete in a open economy, but also does it have a cancerous tendency to self-perpetuate. Once you created some bureau that is supposed to solve a problem, you created a entity that has a interest and incentives to keep those problems going, to ensure its own existence. Just look at all those "war on homelessness"-initiatives. They never do anything to curb homelessness. All they do is spend ever more money and transfer 6-figure salaries to a bunch of people who claim to be working on solving the problem of homelessness but never do anything but talk about it. The beauty of a truly free market is that there are no middle men. It self regulates on a grass roots level by people deciding for themselves how to spend their money. People think that is dangerous and bad because powerful corporations will just stomp the little man, but when you grow up and learn how the world works, you realize that every time we try to regulate the free market to supposedly make it fair, we do the exact opposite. What always happens is that we end up with a system where the little man has no choice anymore what to do with his money because the government takes it from him by force and then hands it to those corporations, after all the bureaucratic middle men took their cut. That is why the big bad corporations are usually pro regulations and support politicians who run on a "I'll tell those corporations what to do!"-platform. They know that they can afford to spend some extra money to adhere to those regulations and can hire smart lawyers to find loopholes and get around all the regulations they don't like, while their little competitors, the small companies and mom and pa business, can not. So those regulations meant to put a leash on the big corporations always end up skewing the market in their favor and hurting the little man, by making it impossible for small entrepreneurs to compete and by thus creating monopolies that then can squeeze more money out of customers who have no choice. Long story short, don't be too quick calling for regulations and government initiatives. The shortage of affordable housing too is ultimately the result of big corporations and funds like Blackrock using the power government gave them to manipulate the market in their favor.
@@TrangleC The government, at federal and local levels, created the housing problem with zoning laws and building regulations. Loosen up on regulations, and get rid of zoning, and the housing supply problem will be fixed and it will no longer be attractive as an investment that is limited in supply. The government needs to butt out of telling people where and what they can build. In my small town I talked to an older woman, she was in her 70s or 80s and she was talking about when the town was first starting to grow pretty large, how they had lived in small houses and trailers. A little later in the conversation she started talking about how they needed to enforce town ordinances and move out the small houses and trailers because they hurt property values. When I mentioned that she and everyone else there started out in smaller houses that were built larger later, she got quiet and changed the subject. There are lots of undeveloped land, no one can afford to develop them because of zoning and building regulations. Even small governments perpetuate this problem.
@@user-nu8in3ey8c I've just read that since Javier Milei deregulated the housing market in Argentina, supply went up by 200% and rents went down by 20%, within a few months.
Your channel is going to blow up ! I wish I could edit like you 😅 This is amazing, 10/10 from a new creator myself ❤Wishing you all the success! Your gonna be huge 👏👏
The middle class is dead. You aren't middle class if you don't own your home without any payments, you aren't middle class if what you produce for your company isn't yours to begin with and then sold to the company. If you don't have control and say over what you produce you aren't middle class. You need be able to make independent decisions every day and bear the responsibility for them. That doesn't exist anymore.
I'm an outsider, German and back in the 90s and early 2000s there was a lot of talk about the Middle Class shrinking in Germany. Here it was the case that many people did get poorer and left the Middle Class downwards. When I read how Americans talked about the American Middle Class shrinking in internet forums (which back then were still a thing) I just assumed the story would be the same, but then I got corrected. People explained to me that the American Middle Class wasn't shrinking because people got poorer, but the opposite was the case. It shrank because people left it upwards by becoming rich. I have to admit I was quite astonished back then when I looked it up and found statistics saying that something like 1 in 7 US Americans were networth millionaires and 1 in 5 made more than 200 000 Dollars per year. Those were quite impressive numbers to me in Germany, where even well paid engineers and middle manager types made about 50 000 to 60 000 Euros per year at the time. Nowadays salaries in the 100 000 Euro per year range have become pretty common, but Germany is still far off compared to the USA.
Keep in mind the US reports the Gross Household income more often than individual income. Less than 11% of people earn above 100-120k in the US before taxes mind you. On top of that when your house/apartment costs 500 000$, being a millionaire means you own a home, a car and a bit more. Also the places where you'd earn 100k a year more easily, the homes cost well over 500 000$ too. That average takes into account the places where homes are 10 000 - 30 000$ due to nobody living there.
I share in your diagnosis of communisms major failings, that is "imperfect people," which results in the misallocation of resources to the detriment of societal and economic well-being. These "imperfect people" exist in the capitalist systems too much to the same effect.
@@sulimanthemagnificent4893I can point to terrible outcomes from each system. At the end of the day its not which system is worse, its a question of: are you okay with the trade offs? Communism: You want central planning, rapid industrialization, and societal transformation? Well, get ready to be forced into collectives where 30 million people will die because party officials were dishonest about the grain harvest. Capitalism: You want cheap and plentiful food, products that improve your life, and amazing technologies? Well, get ready for unhealthy processed foods, microplastics everywhere, and addictive social media platforms where YOU are the product. Historically speaking, I think communism has caused more harm than good due to the focus on centralized power and the limiting of human creativity and innovation. Because the state controls so much, if/when they mess up something its felt by EVERYONE. Whereas, in capitalism if one bank makes a bad investment, there are 99 other banks that are doing okay (unless the banks become too big to fail!).
Your comment isthe best comment/discussion about the video. No economic system is going to be 100% perfect and live up to the theory it proposes because we are imperfect people living in an environment with finite resources. Which is why we end up with mixed markets and it’s best not to go all in on one idea. It’s good to have checks and balances.
I remember diving into the subject a long time ago I can tell you're an honest person going wherever the facts lead. Just like I was, I believe our way of life would be restored if we can strengthen our antitrust laws and force companies to compete for lower prices and better wages
We middle-class people are dying because things cost way too much. If you live in a nice part of the country in a suburb outside of the metropolitan area that contains most of the good jobs and careers and business opportunities, getting a house cost you over 1 million getting your kid in a good school cost you another hundred thousand getting the right healthcare costs 20 grand having a car with insurance for a kid or two and a spouse 40,000 and so forth. So if you’re a regular dude making 150,000 and your wife’s making 75 you cannot even afford to come close to living a middle-class life. the lifestyle you call middle in a major metro area like Orlando or Nashville or Atlanta or Dallas or Houston $250-$350,000 a year minimum in income. And middle class guys just ain’t got that. No matter what cause Covid or interest rates or whatever it is, the truth is cost of risen way past incomes.
This feels too analytical, as if youre reading all this info from books and research but dont actually see or feel the pressures happening to those of us living under these pressures right now.
this is wrong in many levels, even tho houses increased 50% as you state. It would depend on the areas of mayor demand it may have increased by a greater percentage, but still, discounting inflation that is a 20% increase. Also, you are assuming that a person who works can not stay relevant to the market because innovations are pushing them to factory work, but in reality people should and can keep investing in themselves through learning new skills and improving existing ones. But yeah, lets stop innovation and stop using electricity so candle makers can keep earning a wage
The very opposite of the thing that gave rise to it, inflation. You see when your basket of goods goes from 100 dollars to 80 but your wages stays at 120 you’re richer. But when your basket of goods goes from 100 to 140 but your wage only grows by 10 dollars to end up at 160 you’re poorer. Of course this is “bad for the economy” according to “economists”, who think that constantly decreasing prices means people won’t consume as much, so decided that 2% inflation was a good target. Nevermind all the other disgusting economic policies and legislated laws, if you deflate you’ll quickly see the middle class recover in a few years, they did it in 1920-21 and in 1945 onward, they can do it again.
Pretty simple. Covid took 20m jobs. We got those jobs back +12m. But somehow native born employment is at the same level as before we lost the 20m. What does that tell you about the employment numbers class?
If we could just get the cost of housing down it would solve SO many problems. The government should do everything it can to incentivize building affordable housing, or even do it itself.
I used to think like you too, but I stopped when I learned more about those things.
Government interference always fails and causes more problems. If that weren't the case, Socialist and other Totalitarian Systems would be thriving, instead of failing over and over again and even within supposedly free market economies in developed countries, you can see that government initiatives pretty much always fail to achieve what they set out to do. Part of it is simply bureaucracy. Not only is it slow and ineffective and attracts inept people who are after cushy jobs and don't want to compete in a open economy, but also does it have a cancerous tendency to self-perpetuate. Once you created some bureau that is supposed to solve a problem, you created a entity that has a interest and incentives to keep those problems going, to ensure its own existence.
Just look at all those "war on homelessness"-initiatives. They never do anything to curb homelessness. All they do is spend ever more money and transfer 6-figure salaries to a bunch of people who claim to be working on solving the problem of homelessness but never do anything but talk about it.
The beauty of a truly free market is that there are no middle men. It self regulates on a grass roots level by people deciding for themselves how to spend their money.
People think that is dangerous and bad because powerful corporations will just stomp the little man, but when you grow up and learn how the world works, you realize that every time we try to regulate the free market to supposedly make it fair, we do the exact opposite. What always happens is that we end up with a system where the little man has no choice anymore what to do with his money because the government takes it from him by force and then hands it to those corporations, after all the bureaucratic middle men took their cut.
That is why the big bad corporations are usually pro regulations and support politicians who run on a "I'll tell those corporations what to do!"-platform. They know that they can afford to spend some extra money to adhere to those regulations and can hire smart lawyers to find loopholes and get around all the regulations they don't like, while their little competitors, the small companies and mom and pa business, can not.
So those regulations meant to put a leash on the big corporations always end up skewing the market in their favor and hurting the little man, by making it impossible for small entrepreneurs to compete and by thus creating monopolies that then can squeeze more money out of customers who have no choice.
Long story short, don't be too quick calling for regulations and government initiatives.
The shortage of affordable housing too is ultimately the result of big corporations and funds like Blackrock using the power government gave them to manipulate the market in their favor.
@@TrangleC The government, at federal and local levels, created the housing problem with zoning laws and building regulations. Loosen up on regulations, and get rid of zoning, and the housing supply problem will be fixed and it will no longer be attractive as an investment that is limited in supply. The government needs to butt out of telling people where and what they can build.
In my small town I talked to an older woman, she was in her 70s or 80s and she was talking about when the town was first starting to grow pretty large, how they had lived in small houses and trailers. A little later in the conversation she started talking about how they needed to enforce town ordinances and move out the small houses and trailers because they hurt property values. When I mentioned that she and everyone else there started out in smaller houses that were built larger later, she got quiet and changed the subject. There are lots of undeveloped land, no one can afford to develop them because of zoning and building regulations. Even small governments perpetuate this problem.
@@user-nu8in3ey8c I've just read that since Javier Milei deregulated the housing market in Argentina, supply went up by 200% and rents went down by 20%, within a few months.
Your channel is going to blow up !
I wish I could edit like you 😅
This is amazing, 10/10 from a new creator myself ❤Wishing you all the success! Your gonna be huge 👏👏
The middle class is dead. You aren't middle class if you don't own your home without any payments, you aren't middle class if what you produce for your company isn't yours to begin with and then sold to the company. If you don't have control and say over what you produce you aren't middle class. You need be able to make independent decisions every day and bear the responsibility for them.
That doesn't exist anymore.
I'm an outsider, German and back in the 90s and early 2000s there was a lot of talk about the Middle Class shrinking in Germany. Here it was the case that many people did get poorer and left the Middle Class downwards.
When I read how Americans talked about the American Middle Class shrinking in internet forums (which back then were still a thing) I just assumed the story would be the same, but then I got corrected. People explained to me that the American Middle Class wasn't shrinking because people got poorer, but the opposite was the case. It shrank because people left it upwards by becoming rich.
I have to admit I was quite astonished back then when I looked it up and found statistics saying that something like 1 in 7 US Americans were networth millionaires and 1 in 5 made more than 200 000 Dollars per year.
Those were quite impressive numbers to me in Germany, where even well paid engineers and middle manager types made about 50 000 to 60 000 Euros per year at the time.
Nowadays salaries in the 100 000 Euro per year range have become pretty common, but Germany is still far off compared to the USA.
Keep in mind the US reports the Gross Household income more often than individual income. Less than 11% of people earn above 100-120k in the US before taxes mind you.
On top of that when your house/apartment costs 500 000$, being a millionaire means you own a home, a car and a bit more.
Also the places where you'd earn 100k a year more easily, the homes cost well over 500 000$ too. That average takes into account the places where homes are 10 000 - 30 000$ due to nobody living there.
I share in your diagnosis of communisms major failings, that is "imperfect people," which results in the misallocation of resources to the detriment of societal and economic well-being. These "imperfect people" exist in the capitalist systems too much to the same effect.
Question, is the effect worse in capitalism or communism?
@@sulimanthemagnificent4893I can point to terrible outcomes from each system. At the end of the day its not which system is worse, its a question of: are you okay with the trade offs?
Communism: You want central planning, rapid industrialization, and societal transformation? Well, get ready to be forced into collectives where 30 million people will die because party officials were dishonest about the grain harvest.
Capitalism: You want cheap and plentiful food, products that improve your life, and amazing technologies? Well, get ready for unhealthy processed foods, microplastics everywhere, and addictive social media platforms where YOU are the product.
Historically speaking, I think communism has caused more harm than good due to the focus on centralized power and the limiting of human creativity and innovation. Because the state controls so much, if/when they mess up something its felt by EVERYONE. Whereas, in capitalism if one bank makes a bad investment, there are 99 other banks that are doing okay (unless the banks become too big to fail!).
Your comment isthe best comment/discussion about the video. No economic system is going to be 100% perfect and live up to the theory it proposes because we are imperfect people living in an environment with finite resources. Which is why we end up with mixed markets and it’s best not to go all in on one idea. It’s good to have checks and balances.
I remember diving into the subject a long time ago I can tell you're an honest person going wherever the facts lead. Just like I was, I believe our way of life would be restored if we can strengthen our antitrust laws and force companies to compete for lower prices and better wages
It's not a bug, it's a feature
Greay give advice on how to reverse it vs complaining.
We middle-class people are dying because things cost way too much. If you live in a nice part of the country in a suburb outside of the metropolitan area that contains most of the good jobs and careers and business opportunities, getting a house cost you over 1 million getting your kid in a good school cost you another hundred thousand getting the right healthcare costs 20 grand having a car with insurance for a kid or two and a spouse 40,000 and so forth. So if you’re a regular dude making 150,000 and your wife’s making 75 you cannot even afford to come close to living a middle-class life. the lifestyle you call middle in a major metro area like Orlando or Nashville or Atlanta or Dallas or Houston $250-$350,000 a year minimum in income. And middle class guys just ain’t got that. No matter what cause Covid or interest rates or whatever it is, the truth is cost of risen way past incomes.
Give the devil his due, but don't give him any more than that, lest he take your soul with it.
The fiat devaluation of the dollar......
We can always print more baby
@@adiintel1 Which devalues each digit.
@@toddjohnson271 well yes the masses still don't no that yet. Unless you lived in Argentina.
This feels too analytical, as if youre reading all this info from books and research but dont actually see or feel the pressures happening to those of us living under these pressures right now.
We the people are ✨fucked✨
These are definitely hard times. It will be interesting to see the Feds moves for the rest of the year.
Vote for trump. The people who caused the problem (the uniparty) for the middle class are scared of him and that alone is reason to vote him in
this is wrong in many levels, even tho houses increased 50% as you state. It would depend on the areas of mayor demand it may have increased by a greater percentage, but still, discounting inflation that is a 20% increase. Also, you are assuming that a person who works can not stay relevant to the market because innovations are pushing them to factory work, but in reality people should and can keep investing in themselves through learning new skills and improving existing ones.
But yeah, lets stop innovation and stop using electricity so candle makers can keep earning a wage
The very opposite of the thing that gave rise to it, inflation.
You see when your basket of goods goes from 100 dollars to 80 but your wages stays at 120 you’re richer.
But when your basket of goods goes from 100 to 140 but your wage only grows by 10 dollars to end up at 160 you’re poorer.
Of course this is “bad for the economy” according to “economists”, who think that constantly decreasing prices means people won’t consume as much, so decided that 2% inflation was a good target.
Nevermind all the other disgusting economic policies and legislated laws, if you deflate you’ll quickly see the middle class recover in a few years, they did it in 1920-21 and in 1945 onward, they can do it again.
Pretty simple. Covid took 20m jobs. We got those jobs back +12m. But somehow native born employment is at the same level as before we lost the 20m. What does that tell you about the employment numbers class?
Joe Biden / vid.
Pls keep on topic, focus on the ideas not the books