14 ms·

> This is anecdotal and it might come across as bitter and tonedeaf as someone who is not in a STEM job and cant see the bigger picture very well. Im a diesel e

> This is anecdotal and it might come across as bitter and tonedeaf as someone who is not in a STEM job and cant see the bigger picture very well. Im a diesel engine tech who repairs those big trucks carrying food and shit tickets to grocery stores. the fact that ANY market is completely detached from whats actually happening to Americans is frustrating. Thanks for posting this comment. I know it sounds trite, but I’m sending well wishes your way, hoping you and your loved ones make it through this crisis as minimally impacted as possible. I think you likely see the big picture better than others. The economy is absolutely crushed. That the markets go up must be especially frustrating to those not able to partake in any gains. My take on the market is that it will go up on good or bad news for the moment. Going up on good news is self explanatory, going up on bad news could be related to speculation that the Fed and Congress will pump even more money into the economy —- the wealthy expect to be propped up by the government as they were in the great financial crisis. My cynical take on this is that the rich expect to get richer, no matter the outcome, and are investing accordingly. My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mellow2020 6y ago
> My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. Individuals must answer this question, not just ask it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
0xffff2 6y ago
> My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. My question is how many people have absolutely no ties to the stock market? I'm pretty far from any definition of rich, but I still have a 401k, so you're not likely to see me rioting because the S&P 500 is in the green.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  About half of households own no stock at all. It's a safe bet a good portion of the other half have little enough that "the market's up!" isn't very meaningful for them.
- thescriptkiddie 6y ago
  Only 52% of americans own any stock whatsoever [0], and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stocks-matching-record-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stock... [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085 https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    All taxpayers (since they will have to make up for shortfalls) and recipients of defined benefit pensions (since they will have to accept reductions in benefits) are also indirectly exposed to changes equity prices.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > All taxpayers (since they will have to make up for shortfalls) and recipients of defined benefit pensions (since they will have to accept reductions in benefits) are also indirectly exposed to changes equity prices. But that needs to be put in its proper context. Even if you have a small amount of stock or indirectly benefit from stock prices in some way, it'd be stupid if you let that mentally tie yourself to the stock market. For instance, shortfalls in taxes do not necessarily need to be made up by "all taxpayers." With progressive taxation, they can be made up by some taxpayers (which will likely consist of most HN commentators, since software engineers are relatively wealthy).
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        Not if the shortfall is made up via asset price inflation and dollar devaluation. Then the non asset owning class takes the brunt of the pain. Which is what I believe has been happening for decades. Progressive taxation can help, but I doubt the political will exists to tax capital gains.
_bxg1 6y ago
> My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. There is deep rot at the heart of the American system, and something is going to have to give. The economy has been broken for the lower 50% for a long time now. This course is unsustainable. I try not to get explicitly political on here, but Bernie Sanders was, as far as I can see, our last shot at reversing the trend from within the current system. He is the only person on Capitol Hill with the motivation to make the real changes that desperately need making. Joe Biden will just pretend the problem doesn't exist for another four years. Trump, as a leader, is just an agent of chaos with no ideals and no plan. I can't totally blame people for taking a chance on that over the continued, slow march of rot. I think we're going to start seeing escalating social unrest until something breaks. All we can hope for is that something breaks sooner rather than later, and that we get whatever new deal needs making before things get too bad.
- asdff 6y ago
  It wasn't too long ago that Los Angeles was burning on national TV, and people had to post on roofs with rifles due to the police refusing to get involved with the situation beyond protecting the wealthiest zip codes. It only stopped when the national guard deployed armored vehicles. People think the U.S. is removed from this sort of thing. It's not. If you push the working class to a breaking point, they will break into stores to steal diapers if they have to.
- sjtindell 6y ago
  Does anyone else remember Occupy Wall Street here in the US? Millions camping out in parks demanding change and support. But they were unable to rally, organize, create any lasting impact on the elites and wealthier strata of society. The middle and top looked down on the bottom as an annoyance. They were literally removed by riot police, and the movement died. Unsurprisingly, the number of homeless people increased drastically in that same period (financial crisis) and how have many municipalities responded? Laws against sleeping on benches. There was literally a tent city under Las Vegas, but the decision makers in this society are so far removed it just doesn’t matter. Until the bread runs out, we are not in a real “end of the world” crisis as you describe it. Americans are apathetic, just wealthy enough not to starve, have deeply ingrained individualism that makes them resistant to anything resembling support or handouts, and don’t understand what’s happening - that is to say, the rich are getting so rich their families will never be poor again, and the doors to that class are closing. There’s more support now for ideas like a basic income, universal healthcare, etc. but the fundamentals of the system are so ponderously difficult to change...a very interesting situation.
mc32 6y ago
Most people will not want social unrest. Social unrest leads to chaos and unpredictability. A better alternative is the less sexy but more productive political action obviously with buy in from the power brokers. Unrest is what happens in Venezuela or Yemen, etc. it doesn’t always have to be like that as those are extreme; never the less unrest is a medicine that is in most instances worse than the disease.
- base698 6y ago
  Unrest starts when people had and lost. The people who were able to afford a BMW last year find themselves homeless this year. True Believer has lots of insight into the circumstances than lead to unrest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
  - mc32 6y ago
    I think it starts when people have nothing left to lose. There’s no hope to lose, there’s no illusion left. On the other hand, some societies can descend quite a bit and be okay with going into more or less survival mode: witness Russia.
    - munificent 6y ago
      Not "nothing less", but just less to lose than to gain. People are willing to gamble on a roll of the dice when the upside is larger than the downside.
      - mc32 6y ago
        But the risks for that upside can be pretty large. You cannot predict how things turn out: Mensheviks vs bolsheviks.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      Russia had a lot of political unrest back in the 90s, when it was at the bottom of its descent. It elected extremist parties to parliament - commies had the majority for how long? - and street politics was also... messy at times. I remember growing up in that period, and back then it would have been entirely unsurprising to wake up one day to see ballet on TV where news are supposed to be. So I wouldn't call it a good example of being okay. It made it through that political unrest without blowing up as a whole (but with plenty of local crises, like Chechnya)... but it was not smooth sailing at all.
jdhn 6y ago
>My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. The only social unrest that has happened so far have been the protests about wanting to lift or ease restrictions on states, and they were widely panned as a bunch of nutjobs. I doubt there will be any "unrest" beyond the protests.
- stcredzero 6y ago
  The only social unrest that has happened so far have been the protests about wanting to lift or ease restrictions on states, and they were widely panned as a bunch of nutjobs. It's easy to look down on people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. They're still human beings. They've been given this raw deal: For the greater good, you will now give up your job for an indefinite period of time, with no prospect of finding like employment elsewhere. You have no choice, and if you refuse, you are a horrible person and in some cases you may face civil and criminal consequences. Injustice isn't any less unjust, because the recipients are somehow in a group one perceives as deplorable. Principles of justice and human rights are universal. This was MLK's ideological point in the Civil Rights movement. Adherence to this principle is how I distinguish pseudo-activists who just want power and attention from those who really have justice at heart: Are the principles applied to everyone, or just to whomever it's convenient?
  - cultus 6y ago
    The folks participating in the protest are not at all lower on the socioeconomic latter, but predominately middle class. Black Americans, who tend to be poorer and less secure, support the lockdown at a higher rate than whites or other racial groups [0] (at least in Florida). Whites have the least support for a lockdown, but most still oppose reopening. Lastly, at least some of the protests were funded by the DeVos family [1]. [0] https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=3659 https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=3659 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/26/devos-family-michigan-protest-rightwing-donors https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/26/devos-family...
    - misun78 6y ago
ausjke 6y ago
for investors there is no gain so far, definitely worse than those who did not or could not invest. I think most if not all of "us" are still under deep water, my 401K became 201K a few weeks ago, now it's about 301K, so as a matter of fact, this is a loss year for people who saved to invest, worse than those who did not invest.
simonh 6y ago
Very few rich people will actually get any richer. Most of them are heavily invested in stocks, which have plummeted, or owned or work for businesses which are being crushed. There are very, very few places to hide from what's going on. One possible exception, and it's quite a small group really, may have had a lot of money in cash and bonds. They may be able to do quite well by buying or investing in businesses at relatively low prices and earn gains during the recovery. This is _not_ a bad thing. The economy desperately needs fresh investment to re-grow businesses, re-hire employees, pay salaries, rebuild supply chains. That takes a lot of capital investment. I suppose another way would be to confiscate all their wealth and give it to the government to invest, but who do you trust to do that most efficiently and to the best economic effect. Government bureaucrats, or businesspeople with track records of investing in and growing businesses? So on the business side now is not at all the time to bet on Socialism. We can't afford it at the best of times, let alone the worst. On the other hand, this crisis has starkly exposed the weaknesses of naked market capitalism. It's pretty obvious already that the European model of social democracy with single payer health systems and a robust social safety net has proved far better able to cope with this crisis. It's a system specifically designed to help people suffering hardships, and now it's doing exactly that on a massive scale. I think this comes out of the European experience in the two world wars. Existential crises in which all of society pulled together because we flat out had no other choice. We were all in it together. Now we're all in this together. I suspect this will lead to similar realisations in the US. If big companies hit by disaster deserve bailing out for the common good to save jobs and economic resources, why are individuals hit by adverse circumstances any less deserving at a personal scale? If it's reasonable to help a business hit by a health crisis, why is it unreasonable to help a family? I'm no socialist, check another post on this discussion where I defend Conservatism here in the UK, but recognising that as a society we have obligations to each other isn't socialism, for me it's just pragmatism.
- makomk 6y ago
  Very few rich people will actually get any richer, but that doesn't mean that yellow journalists and political activists won't be able to convince the general public that they did by carefully starting their measurements at around the time the stock market was it its lowest, e.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/billionaires-coronavirus-not-in-the-same-boat https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/billio...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mellow2020 6y ago

> My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. Individuals must answer this question, not just ask it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

0xffff2 6y ago

> My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. My question is how many people have absolutely no ties to the stock market? I'm pretty far from any definition of rich, but I still have a 401k, so you're not likely to see me rioting because the S&P 500 is in the green.

karatestomp 6y ago
About half of households own no stock at all. It's a safe bet a good portion of the other half have little enough that "the market's up!" isn't very meaningful for them.
thescriptkiddie 6y ago
Only 52% of americans own any stock whatsoever [0], and the richest 10% of americans own 84% of all stock. [0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stocks-matching-record-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/190883/half-americans-own-stock... [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085 https://www.nber.org/papers/w24085
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  All taxpayers (since they will have to make up for shortfalls) and recipients of defined benefit pensions (since they will have to accept reductions in benefits) are also indirectly exposed to changes equity prices.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > All taxpayers (since they will have to make up for shortfalls) and recipients of defined benefit pensions (since they will have to accept reductions in benefits) are also indirectly exposed to changes equity prices. But that needs to be put in its proper context. Even if you have a small amount of stock or indirectly benefit from stock prices in some way, it'd be stupid if you let that mentally tie yourself to the stock market. For instance, shortfalls in taxes do not necessarily need to be made up by "all taxpayers." With progressive taxation, they can be made up by some taxpayers (which will likely consist of most HN commentators, since software engineers are relatively wealthy).
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Not if the shortfall is made up via asset price inflation and dollar devaluation. Then the non asset owning class takes the brunt of the pain. Which is what I believe has been happening for decades. Progressive taxation can help, but I doubt the political will exists to tax capital gains.

_bxg1 6y ago

> My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. There is deep rot at the heart of the American system, and something is going to have to give. The economy has been broken for the lower 50% for a long time now. This course is unsustainable. I try not to get explicitly political on here, but Bernie Sanders was, as far as I can see, our last shot at reversing the trend from within the current system. He is the only person on Capitol Hill with the motivation to make the real changes that desperately need making. Joe Biden will just pretend the problem doesn't exist for another four years. Trump, as a leader, is just an agent of chaos with no ideals and no plan. I can't totally blame people for taking a chance on that over the continued, slow march of rot. I think we're going to start seeing escalating social unrest until something breaks. All we can hope for is that something breaks sooner rather than later, and that we get whatever new deal needs making before things get too bad.

asdff 6y ago
It wasn't too long ago that Los Angeles was burning on national TV, and people had to post on roofs with rifles due to the police refusing to get involved with the situation beyond protecting the wealthiest zip codes. It only stopped when the national guard deployed armored vehicles. People think the U.S. is removed from this sort of thing. It's not. If you push the working class to a breaking point, they will break into stores to steal diapers if they have to.
sjtindell 6y ago
Does anyone else remember Occupy Wall Street here in the US? Millions camping out in parks demanding change and support. But they were unable to rally, organize, create any lasting impact on the elites and wealthier strata of society. The middle and top looked down on the bottom as an annoyance. They were literally removed by riot police, and the movement died. Unsurprisingly, the number of homeless people increased drastically in that same period (financial crisis) and how have many municipalities responded? Laws against sleeping on benches. There was literally a tent city under Las Vegas, but the decision makers in this society are so far removed it just doesn’t matter. Until the bread runs out, we are not in a real “end of the world” crisis as you describe it. Americans are apathetic, just wealthy enough not to starve, have deeply ingrained individualism that makes them resistant to anything resembling support or handouts, and don’t understand what’s happening - that is to say, the rich are getting so rich their families will never be poor again, and the doors to that class are closing. There’s more support now for ideas like a basic income, universal healthcare, etc. but the fundamentals of the system are so ponderously difficult to change...a very interesting situation.

mc32 6y ago

Most people will not want social unrest. Social unrest leads to chaos and unpredictability. A better alternative is the less sexy but more productive political action obviously with buy in from the power brokers. Unrest is what happens in Venezuela or Yemen, etc. it doesn’t always have to be like that as those are extreme; never the less unrest is a medicine that is in most instances worse than the disease.

base698 6y ago
Unrest starts when people had and lost. The people who were able to afford a BMW last year find themselves homeless this year. True Believer has lots of insight into the circumstances than lead to unrest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
- mc32 6y ago
  I think it starts when people have nothing left to lose. There’s no hope to lose, there’s no illusion left. On the other hand, some societies can descend quite a bit and be okay with going into more or less survival mode: witness Russia.
  - munificent 6y ago
    Not "nothing less", but just less to lose than to gain. People are willing to gamble on a roll of the dice when the upside is larger than the downside.
    - mc32 6y ago
      But the risks for that upside can be pretty large. You cannot predict how things turn out: Mensheviks vs bolsheviks.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    Russia had a lot of political unrest back in the 90s, when it was at the bottom of its descent. It elected extremist parties to parliament - commies had the majority for how long? - and street politics was also... messy at times. I remember growing up in that period, and back then it would have been entirely unsurprising to wake up one day to see ballet on TV where news are supposed to be. So I wouldn't call it a good example of being okay. It made it through that political unrest without blowing up as a whole (but with plenty of local crises, like Chechnya)... but it was not smooth sailing at all.

jdhn 6y ago

>My question is how much, if any, social unrest this will lead to. The only social unrest that has happened so far have been the protests about wanting to lift or ease restrictions on states, and they were widely panned as a bunch of nutjobs. I doubt there will be any "unrest" beyond the protests.

stcredzero 6y ago
The only social unrest that has happened so far have been the protests about wanting to lift or ease restrictions on states, and they were widely panned as a bunch of nutjobs. It's easy to look down on people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. They're still human beings. They've been given this raw deal: For the greater good, you will now give up your job for an indefinite period of time, with no prospect of finding like employment elsewhere. You have no choice, and if you refuse, you are a horrible person and in some cases you may face civil and criminal consequences. Injustice isn't any less unjust, because the recipients are somehow in a group one perceives as deplorable. Principles of justice and human rights are universal. This was MLK's ideological point in the Civil Rights movement. Adherence to this principle is how I distinguish pseudo-activists who just want power and attention from those who really have justice at heart: Are the principles applied to everyone, or just to whomever it's convenient?
- cultus 6y ago
  The folks participating in the protest are not at all lower on the socioeconomic latter, but predominately middle class. Black Americans, who tend to be poorer and less secure, support the lockdown at a higher rate than whites or other racial groups [0] (at least in Florida). Whites have the least support for a lockdown, but most still oppose reopening. Lastly, at least some of the protests were funded by the DeVos family [1]. [0] https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=3659 https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=3659 [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/26/devos-family-michigan-protest-rightwing-donors https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/26/devos-family...
  - misun78 6y ago

ausjke 6y ago

for investors there is no gain so far, definitely worse than those who did not or could not invest. I think most if not all of "us" are still under deep water, my 401K became 201K a few weeks ago, now it's about 301K, so as a matter of fact, this is a loss year for people who saved to invest, worse than those who did not invest.

simonh 6y ago

Very few rich people will actually get any richer. Most of them are heavily invested in stocks, which have plummeted, or owned or work for businesses which are being crushed. There are very, very few places to hide from what's going on. One possible exception, and it's quite a small group really, may have had a lot of money in cash and bonds. They may be able to do quite well by buying or investing in businesses at relatively low prices and earn gains during the recovery. This is _not_ a bad thing. The economy desperately needs fresh investment to re-grow businesses, re-hire employees, pay salaries, rebuild supply chains. That takes a lot of capital investment. I suppose another way would be to confiscate all their wealth and give it to the government to invest, but who do you trust to do that most efficiently and to the best economic effect. Government bureaucrats, or businesspeople with track records of investing in and growing businesses? So on the business side now is not at all the time to bet on Socialism. We can't afford it at the best of times, let alone the worst. On the other hand, this crisis has starkly exposed the weaknesses of naked market capitalism. It's pretty obvious already that the European model of social democracy with single payer health systems and a robust social safety net has proved far better able to cope with this crisis. It's a system specifically designed to help people suffering hardships, and now it's doing exactly that on a massive scale. I think this comes out of the European experience in the two world wars. Existential crises in which all of society pulled together because we flat out had no other choice. We were all in it together. Now we're all in this together. I suspect this will lead to similar realisations in the US. If big companies hit by disaster deserve bailing out for the common good to save jobs and economic resources, why are individuals hit by adverse circumstances any less deserving at a personal scale? If it's reasonable to help a business hit by a health crisis, why is it unreasonable to help a family? I'm no socialist, check another post on this discussion where I defend Conservatism here in the UK, but recognising that as a society we have obligations to each other isn't socialism, for me it's just pragmatism.

makomk 6y ago
Very few rich people will actually get any richer, but that doesn't mean that yellow journalists and political activists won't be able to convince the general public that they did by carefully starting their measurements at around the time the stock market was it its lowest, e.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/billionaires-coronavirus-not-in-the-same-boat https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/billio...