We discuss the 'new poverty line,' consider what we owe to Afghan refugees, discuss who should go by 'Doctor,' and consider craps and Benihana as antidotes to social atomization.
My theory about why middle and upper middle class people are so unhappy about the economy is that prices increased more for the kinds of goods and services people strongly feel *should* come with a middle or upper middle income. The big ones are housing, cars, and childcare, but also things like eating out, food delivery, furniture, and appliances. Anecdotally, many hobbies have become dramatically more expensive over the past decade as well. So sure, your TV, laptop, gym membership, and t-shirts are more affordable than ever. You can trade stocks without paying commission and flying to visit your parents is cheaper than ever. But the kinds of things that people associate most strongly with middle-class prosperity really are less affordable.
I also think there have been shifts in the economy, especially the increase in wages for lower-level service workers, that make day-to-day life feel less prosperous and convenient for upper-middle class. Nowadays, you usually have to bag your own groceries, or even do self-checkout. There are fewer sit down restaurants and more food trucks. Customer service jobs have been cut and replaced with AI or other automated systems. Many stores and restaurants close earlier in the day. If you're feeling uncharitable, you'd say this is just people being mad that they have fewer opportunities to make low level wage workers cater to them. But more charitably, I do think there is something to the idea that something has been lost with these shifts, even if they're maybe worth it for society as a whole.
I think most middle-to-upper-middle-class people would prefer to live in a world where a nice house, nice furniture, and sit down restaurants were more affordable but TVs and t-shirts were more expensive.
(This is all compatible with the other theories the hosts raised, of course.)
The wage compression thing is interesting and a little maddening because Democrats got no apparent benefit from it among lower-income voters, even as it contributed to economic discontent among higher-income voters facing higher prices for services.
Oh yes, I find this maddening as well. The unfortunate truth is that people largely attribute raises to their own virtue, but attribute prices to the party in power. While not rational, I think most people would actually feel happier getting a 5% raise in a world with 2% inflation than getting a 15% raise in a world with 10% inflation, even though in the latter world they got a larger raise in real terms. In the latter case, people feel like most of their raise was "stolen" by inflation, and that "injustice" feels more salient to them than the real increase in wages.
This episode didn’t engage at all with what I thought was Michael Green’s core argument: that the calculation of the poverty line is _no longer valid_, because food costs are far outweighed by housing and healthcare costs compared to decades ago.
Sure, 140k is a silly number and it was unfortunate that Michael provided his own straw man to tear down. But is it really that crazy to imagine that the poverty line for a family of 4 should instead be, say, double what it is (~$64k)?
A couple of points on the "Is $140,000 poverty level?" conversation.
1. NYT columnist Jamelle Bouie once posted on Bluesky that it was cheaper to prepare one's own meals than to eat out or order in. And people CAME AT HIM FOR DAYS, making all sorts of comically absurd arguments about portion sizes and opportunity costs and the like.
2. I agree that broad based tax increases are needed but no longer politically possible. HW Bush and Clinton each passed such a tax inrease in the early 1990s. This led to every single Republican politican adopting Grover Norquist's no tax increases pledge and to Democrats getting swept out of power in Congress for 14 years. In the debate between the parties on whether any tax increase at all was ever acceptable, Republicans won and Democrats threw in the towel on all but the highest incomes.
Even the Bush I and Clinton tax increases were not really broad based (except for the gasoline tax increase in the Clinton budget). Both of their deficit-reduction packages focused heavily on raising income taxes on high earners. The last broad-based tax increase on wages was in the 1983 package of Social Security reforms.
Loved this episode. When I worked in higher ed, the faculty went on strike over contract negotiations.
They picketed on move-in day so parents and new students would see it. One faculty member complained that they'd have to "start paying for health care."
The fact they were saying this to parents who definitely pay a lot more for healthcare, who were paying a small fortune for their kids to go to the school, cemented for me how out of touch academica is.
My theory about why middle and upper middle class people are so unhappy about the economy is that prices increased more for the kinds of goods and services people strongly feel *should* come with a middle or upper middle income. The big ones are housing, cars, and childcare, but also things like eating out, food delivery, furniture, and appliances. Anecdotally, many hobbies have become dramatically more expensive over the past decade as well. So sure, your TV, laptop, gym membership, and t-shirts are more affordable than ever. You can trade stocks without paying commission and flying to visit your parents is cheaper than ever. But the kinds of things that people associate most strongly with middle-class prosperity really are less affordable.
I also think there have been shifts in the economy, especially the increase in wages for lower-level service workers, that make day-to-day life feel less prosperous and convenient for upper-middle class. Nowadays, you usually have to bag your own groceries, or even do self-checkout. There are fewer sit down restaurants and more food trucks. Customer service jobs have been cut and replaced with AI or other automated systems. Many stores and restaurants close earlier in the day. If you're feeling uncharitable, you'd say this is just people being mad that they have fewer opportunities to make low level wage workers cater to them. But more charitably, I do think there is something to the idea that something has been lost with these shifts, even if they're maybe worth it for society as a whole.
I think most middle-to-upper-middle-class people would prefer to live in a world where a nice house, nice furniture, and sit down restaurants were more affordable but TVs and t-shirts were more expensive.
(This is all compatible with the other theories the hosts raised, of course.)
The wage compression thing is interesting and a little maddening because Democrats got no apparent benefit from it among lower-income voters, even as it contributed to economic discontent among higher-income voters facing higher prices for services.
Oh yes, I find this maddening as well. The unfortunate truth is that people largely attribute raises to their own virtue, but attribute prices to the party in power. While not rational, I think most people would actually feel happier getting a 5% raise in a world with 2% inflation than getting a 15% raise in a world with 10% inflation, even though in the latter world they got a larger raise in real terms. In the latter case, people feel like most of their raise was "stolen" by inflation, and that "injustice" feels more salient to them than the real increase in wages.
This episode didn’t engage at all with what I thought was Michael Green’s core argument: that the calculation of the poverty line is _no longer valid_, because food costs are far outweighed by housing and healthcare costs compared to decades ago.
Sure, 140k is a silly number and it was unfortunate that Michael provided his own straw man to tear down. But is it really that crazy to imagine that the poverty line for a family of 4 should instead be, say, double what it is (~$64k)?
Welcome to Central Air! Or as I like to call it: Fuckshit and Friends! 😉
You mean Dr. Fuckshit and Friends, Phd.
I definitely shoulda finished it out before commenting!
Outside of a few professional/academic contexts where no one is expecting a physician, no one with a PhD should use "Dr."
And if you have a PhD and you must trumpet your degree to the world, use "PhD" instead of "Dr." to avoid confusion with physicians. But really, don't.
I had a little fun* using Dr. for a short time between graduating and realizing that trying to go by "Dr." was dumb.
*Fun by person with PhD standards, anyway.
A couple of points on the "Is $140,000 poverty level?" conversation.
1. NYT columnist Jamelle Bouie once posted on Bluesky that it was cheaper to prepare one's own meals than to eat out or order in. And people CAME AT HIM FOR DAYS, making all sorts of comically absurd arguments about portion sizes and opportunity costs and the like.
2. I agree that broad based tax increases are needed but no longer politically possible. HW Bush and Clinton each passed such a tax inrease in the early 1990s. This led to every single Republican politican adopting Grover Norquist's no tax increases pledge and to Democrats getting swept out of power in Congress for 14 years. In the debate between the parties on whether any tax increase at all was ever acceptable, Republicans won and Democrats threw in the towel on all but the highest incomes.
Even the Bush I and Clinton tax increases were not really broad based (except for the gasoline tax increase in the Clinton budget). Both of their deficit-reduction packages focused heavily on raising income taxes on high earners. The last broad-based tax increase on wages was in the 1983 package of Social Security reforms.
Loved this episode. When I worked in higher ed, the faculty went on strike over contract negotiations.
They picketed on move-in day so parents and new students would see it. One faculty member complained that they'd have to "start paying for health care."
The fact they were saying this to parents who definitely pay a lot more for healthcare, who were paying a small fortune for their kids to go to the school, cemented for me how out of touch academica is.