The Fed is trapped: It can’t raise too much since trillions of debt rely on very low rates. If it doesn’t raise enough then
inflation will cause a recession.
IMHO, it's a sign that American innovation has peaked. It's also reflected by the markedly decrease in intellectualism (as if American culture wasn't anti-intellectual to begin with). When I see young students from other countries and compare them to Americans, there is very little valuing education in fact the antagonism is occurring.
For example, math is being scapegoated as systematically discriminating against the lowest performers while the highest performers are being subject to the equivalent of forced confessions, guilt and pushed ridiculous theories about race. Yet despite that camp's calls for equity, it is still okay for Asian Americans to be discriminated at academic institutions and various other fields while there are increased calls for virtue signaling towards other groups who do not get the same scrutiny and insanely high standards. Meanwhile the lowest end of the society are allowed to steal (as long as its under $950), commit crimes without consequences (take a trip to SF to see thanks to calls for community patrols post-Floyd) and descend into the inhumane (mental health issues from drug addictions and poverty being normalized) because there is now a sort of compassion industrial complex armed with the loudspeaker that is social media to manipulate opinions while cancelling out the rational as the enemy.
Meanwhile, the military are increasingly spending large amount of money in video games, making young Americans idolize military & war, if not evident from the war mongering cries out of America for a conflict that they largely put in the groundwork to trap their old enemy, censoring, cancelling any opposing view to their narrative. We are all confused, angry, quick to point fingers at one another, instead of nuanced takes, whatever narrative invokes emotions strongest drowns out other side, regardless of whether they are grounded on reality or outright fabrication.
This is the trickle down effect I notice also at YC, I see increasingly bad ideas being pushed like blockchains without any real adoption, trading of unregistered securities, and SaaS companies without real revenues raise ton of money but with no real business plan or use case. It's clearly a race to IPO and find exit liquidity. ex) Coinbase
This is all a giant mess and I ponder, how did America stoop this low, where did it all go wrong?
I do see a separate parallel problem of too much dumb capital chasing returns that are in the past not the future, but that can also be connected to the maturation of internet/web platform and the rollout of 2010s web tech to legacy industries; applying web tech to healthcare and like Africa is low-risk high reward ... capital floods the low grounds first
also see "diffusion of technological revolution" installation/deployment model https://i.imgur.com/BLVTqo2.png
what do I need to read to understand this
I do not envy the position the Fed is in.
Your elderly parents need to move in with you because they cannot afford to live on their own.
Can you have it both ways ?
On the other hand, as there’s effectively no border enforcement during this administration, I guess they’re already accomplishing their goals without needing the media to ram “Americans can’t/won’t do the jobs” down your throat.
Either of these effects on their own would hurt the younger generations, and together would make the already slow wealth building hit a brick wall. (I'm 25, for the record, and I don't expect to be debt-free or a homeowner until well into middle age)
While it really shouldn't be true, and at the level of financial mechanics probably isn't, the stock market has become the measure of the economy. Remember, pensions are dead and buried, and the nuclear family standard means that relying on your children (read: you and I) is not the bulwark it once was. That means 401(k) performance is really, really important, as terrible as that may be -- its just the reality right now.
The problem is... almost no financial instruments outside of stocks can provide a meaningful return any more, so even the target date funds are almost all stock.
I noted your other "time in the market beats timing the market" comment, which suggests you are an active investor. That's great! But very few Americans are active investors, and expecting them to become so is unrealistic.
Its a problem of realpolitik, which is why, going back to my original comment, you should still care, if only for how it will affect you.
[0]: Here is an example prospectus of a 2055 target date fund. Note the graph showing the changing allocation of stocks/bonds/money-market funds (or CDs). By retirement, nearly half the portfolio is still stocks. https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/summary.asp?client...
This literally could mean the difference between living independently or not for a lot of people.
Not to mention everybody working today with a 401k as their retirement plan will lose value no matter their age, which means they have to work longer than planned. This is a real life impact to a lot of people.
Given that quality of assistive care matters, it could literally mean the difference between living and not for people.
Of course, on the other hand, so could runaway inflation for lots of people into the same age group (not every elderly person is self-sufficient on retirement income; many are supported by younger, working family members.)
Retirees who are fortunate enough to have substantial retirement assets should take precautions against risk. If they haven’t then that’s their problem. I’m retiring in 30 years, my retirement accounts are all stocks. If I was 65 I’d have my 401(k) heavily in bonds and fixed income.
Anything else is just greed.
On the one hand, retirees bring nothing of real value to the economy. We serve them because of the obligations they built up over their working careers. But, they get the focus of attention because a) they have all the money, b) they have all the time to be engaged in politics, and c) they vote. But they're purely an extractive cost center. A kind of economic parasite that keeps getting bigger and bigger with the magic of compounding interest.
On the other hand, the younger working class generations, who are the real engines of the economy that keep us all fed and served, are legitimately suffering and failing to acquire a significant stake in the economy. Sure, employment is high but pay is low compared to their parents. When shit hits the fan, the young generations are largely gonna shrug, because who fights to defend something they don't have a stake in?
It really seems like a powder keg for revolution.
Sure they may not be producing anything, but is there any value to the idea they consumers still? A lot of FIRE philosophy is you work hard so you can earn retirement early too -- people aren't going to work all their lives either, there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. It is saddening that it may not be the case for many.
https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/601639/estate-tax-exemption-...
Mind you, this also avoids a ton of tax that would otherwise be due had they not died via the step-up in basis... it's a massive giveaway to the rich.
Which supports the claim that they are low, and, consequently that young people (who often stand to inherit from their elderly relatives) have a stake in the investments of old people not getting wiped out.
For a lot of people, what is even the point of living if there's no retirement to enjoy?
They are an extractive class insofar as their present contributions are net negative. But you are forgetting they likely spent their entire life building up that account, both in terms of an actual retirement and the broader accounting of total life's contributions. Indeed, it is something that hopefully you and I will enjoy one day, because we've earned it.
That idea reeks of short-term thinking, and a world of endless work for no reward as your worth goes to 0 once you stop contributing.
That is the normal human experience.
But also not what I'm suggesting.
But nearly every society has some form of elder care.
The point is you are supposed to be helping other people in some way. Not just being a useless turd and forcing young functional people pay rent to you so that you can do nothing but sit on your fat ass and shit in your diaper. They also lived in a society that was much more prosperous than any young person ever will. Considering that now everything is ruined, it's hard not to look at them and imagine they share some small part of the blame.
Maybe if people cared less about saving up a big sum for themselves to "enjoy their retirement", aka being a self-centered moron, then the world wouldn't be such a shithole today.
They own the house, which they bought and paid for. It is their property to rent or not rent as they see fit. You pay money for said privilege. They are not squatting on communal property, and short of returning it to the market the property would otherwise sit unused and wasted.
Are you saying that young "functional" people should have free housing? Most of you had some for 18, 20, maybe even 25+ years with your parents. Is it that you want that to last forever? Do you guys think you are Peter Pan or somethign?
> Considering that now everything is ruined, it's hard not to look at them and imagine they share some small part of the blame.
Don't let generational nihilism color your vision so much. There is a world of opportunity out there, especially here in the US, but young people think said opportunity looks like Twitch streaming or professional influencing or pretending that are innovating, but it's not. If those kids would pull their heads out of their asses and start learning how to be boring they will find there is lots of ways to get ahead in life, and that there aren't a lot of easy answers on YouTube.
"Everything is ruined"... like, c'mon, if that's really what you think then you've barely even lived
>but young people think said opportunity looks like Twitch streaming or professional influencing or pretending that are innovating
Physician, heal thyself
I guess the alternative is to not have any savings and rely on others to take care of them and that is somehow less self-centered?
Let's not forget that consumption is bringing in revenue to _someone_ which does provide value to the economy. Unbelievable
We can acknowledge the humanity of the humans who make up the constituent parts of the colossus while also saying that the colossus, the sum of those humans, is a potentially negative force on the stability and sustainability of the system.
And I speak as one of these retirees.
It's something I appreciate about this community, that we can express ourselves in such ways in order to convey a point without any fat on it. I still assume the person making the point understands that there the fat is there without needing to explicitly mention it. It's a sign of mature dialogue IMO.
[1] other working people once they too retire.
Not true. If retirees have money, that's money they got paid for doing actual contribution. If you devalue that money that's devaluing their life's work and contributions.
Not an advocate for crypto etc, but it feels wrong that a bunch of folks like Powell etc get to decide the fate of whole generation's peaceful retirement.
Because it is. Why did we start interest rate interventions again?
>"It really seems like a powder keg for revolution."
I would argue your entire post seems like a powder keg for some self-reflection.
You’re living in housing built by someone in the past, driving a car engineered years ago, on bridges and roads built decades ago. You enjoy technologies that people even 30 years ago could only dream of, things you did not create or contribute to.
And then you have the gall to whine about those builders, savers, investors, and innovators who created those things.
Kind of sounds like you’re the extractive cost center, to be honest.
Plus, at least current US retirees have social security, which may not last another 20+ years in current form (unfortunately for people paying in today).
However, it would be prudent to assume that the social security benefits will have less and less purchasing power (since each USD will have less and less purchasing power), and the government will not increase the amount of the benefits sufficiently to offset the decrease in purchasing power.
The elite will eventually get their way because it represents such a vast source of untapped value to extract from. Will it be in my lifetime? (im in my 30s).
That I don't know but I do know that they are gunning for it as well as Medicare and Medicaid and if a US bankruptcy does not wipe it out then eventually they will find a way to take it.
And Social Security and other government benefits/services are continuously cut, at least where I live as far as I am concerned since they never keep up with price increases for the things I buy.
To be clear I do not expect a bankruptcy to be a likely outcome. I just consider it a non-impossible possibility. The only scenario I can think of is if some event moves so quickly that the government cannot respond in time before its too late. Even then, I still feel they probably have options.
>And Social Security and other government benefits/services are continuously cut, at least where I live as far as I am concerned since they never keep up with price increases for the things I buy.
Yes they are being devalued and thats the constant battle that is being fought. While the US continues to print money to give to the rich, they sneak things in such as small cuts here and there as well as further taxes on the poor (ie. You now have to pay an additional tax on more than 600$ worth of ebay sales. This was snuck into the relief bill.)
No, that is not a recent addition to tax liabilities. You have always had to pay tax on income. The only difference is eBay (and other facilitators) are required to report it now.
There are a lot of other nefarious things in the bill such as requiring manufacturers to install a device to monitor the driver if they are impaired(beyond 2026). This will lead to fines that will lead to further eroding of what little wealth the poor already have left. Was very smart of them to introduce it far off into the future so it can be slowly integrated into people new car purchases. This is why I believe the addition of the 600$ reporting requirement was no innocent ploy to just shore up this revenue stream. It was purposely introduced at an opportune time.
>In the end if your income is low enough you'll mostly be offset by the standard deduction anyway.
The point was that it is another barrier introduced to extract as much value from the lower classes as possible. In fact you had missed the original point completely.
Cry me a river.
As long as your stock assets aren’t touched for 3-5 years it doesn’t matter what the market does in the next few months.
As you get older 80% bonds 20% stocks.
Source: The intelligent investor (famous finance book)
People these days have 80% house, 15% crypto and 5% stocks
Using the suggested approach would demolish a bond portfolio. Assuming Barclays Aggregate index as a proxy, if interest rates rise to 7%, then half the value of the bonds would be lost.
Note that correlation of rising rates and rising stock market exists until about the 4-6% rate region before the market starts to be truly negatively correlated with bonds above that number.
Based on all my reading over the past several years, this is the first time in history that so many bonds have been priced at or near zero (including below zero rates). I think Benjamin Graham would be writing a supplement to his book if he were alive today.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/heres-where-most-americans-a...
Equity markets can take a hit at pretty much any time for completely unforeseen reasons. This is expected and should be factored into a "safe" withdrawal rate (see Bill Bingham and the 4% rule).
Anyone who was relying on an equity market that never tanked, to survive retirement, was doomed from the outset.
1 - holding bonds versus bond funds are very different, as in the first case, you control the timing of the sale, and in the second, the fund does. That has all sorts of implications about losses (as well as capital gains) in any particular year.
2 - Interest rates have been at zero (ignoring this week's interest rate hike). Using the Barclay's Agg duration of 6.7 (as of this week), then you are just asking for pain in your bond holdings. Stocks may or may not go up or down, but bonds are either going to go down or generate basically zero cash flow. Many people have embraced TINA as a result. [0]
[0] - https://www.ellevest.com/magazine/investing/tina-alternative....
Let's not be naive. The Fed put itself in this position. You're correct. Most of the rest of us will - once again - take a massive shot to the wallet. But to The Fed and its "fan base" it's simply another cycle in the process of moving more from the bottom to the top.
Put another way, you or me are simply not The Fed's priority. I'm not sure why we voted for them.
That last bit is sarcasm.
* An entitity with unprecedented powpower, unelected, and is effectively - due to a lazy and incompotent Congress - unregulated. What could go wrong.
The median household savings is about $5k. Sure, the mean is a lot higher, but that gets thrown off by a few really rich people with enormous savings.
You are not looking at the reality of the situation if you think the average American has a "gigantic amount saved up". The average American is working paycheck to paycheck and is lucky to have a couple hundred bucks for a rainy day or unexpected car repair.
I would _love_ to see how someone renting an apartment and working minimum wage with less than $1k in their checking account can get a $10k loan. What are they going to do, go to the check cashing place around the corner and walk out with 10 grand? (that's saracasm btw)
I don't. All households. Majority of households have > 100k wealth. Your claim is patently wrong, when taken against your citation which shows nearly everyone found _some_ way to pay the expense. Personally I would just pay with a credit card so I can let inflation shred away ~0.5% of the real cost, but I'd be tossed away with those who 'cant afford' it by your interpretation of the study.
I usually keep less than $1k in fiat accounts and I could easily have tens of thousands tomorrow if I like, and my household is far poorer than the median household. It's called selling (or borrowing against) assets. The median household can do the same thing. Only an idiot holds fiat in a savings account when inflation is raging.
I don't think we're looking at the same ~50% of people here...
It's not too far fetched.
1. Buy a house in the 80s when they were like 60k-80k.
2. Work a normal'ish non-tech full time job where you make 35k / year.
3. Fail to pay off your original mortgage over 20-30 years and end up getting a 2nd mortgage.
4. Pay your current mortgage, property taxes and other bills every month.
Pretty sure anyone who is single in this position would have nothing left over per month and be living an extremely tight lifestyle with not much to spare a few days before their next pay check.
Throw in a couple of bad decisions over the decades and you could have no savings too. Something tells me a decent percent of 55-70 year old folks fall into this category.
The following source does indeed show a 50th percentile (median) household wealth of $100K, but if you read the damn thing it shows the median contribution from property is $120K, which presumably means, if you were to exclude property owners, the average would be MUCH closer to 0.
It also shows that 30% is contributed overall from property and another 30% from retirement accounts... Which can't be accessed until late in life and don't help you cover unexpected expenses.
Link: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
> The assets with the highest median values are primary home equity and rental property equity. The median value for home equity and the median equity in rental prop- erties, which are not statistically different from each other, were $118,000 and $120,000, respec- tively