Hacker News Reader

Comment by legitster | Hacker News Reader

It's a well known phenomenon at this point that social media exacerbates scepticism and pessimism. Which makes sense - busy people with a lot going on spend less time online than loners and depressed people. So using the Internet to gauge the economy or public sentiment is going to be increasingly disjointed.

Thing are slowing down but the economy is still flush with cash: starting wages are at an all time high, median household income is increasing the fastest it has in 80 years even adjusting for inflation, consumer spending is breaking records.

There are obviously people being left out of this but beware that you are not in a pessimistic information bubble.

View on HN

“It's a well known phenomenon at this point that social media exacerbates scepticism and pessimism. Which makes sense - busy people with a lot going on spend less time online than loners and depressed people.”

That does such a great job of expressing something I’ve intuitively “known” for a long time.

There are the people who do all the talking, and those who are doing - very few who are in both camps. If you’re busy making things happen, you’re less likely to be commenting.

Doom and gloom also serves independent purposes and isn't just a signaling mechanism arising as a natural outcome of conditions.

Especially with social media, it's worth asking 'does anybody benefit from this particular doom and gloom being socially established and culturally adopted?'

The last thing you want to do is take such a thing at face value, and it's possible that financial markets might discount some such signals, especially if they're getting other signals that give the lie to the doom signals.

Rent is the biggest expense in most peoples lives, and rent is too high. That's not doom and gloom, it's a fact. The FTC and DOJ are suing landlords for using "illegal collusive algorithms" to maximize rents [1]. A recent study [2] reported that half of all US renters, an all-time high of 22.4 million renter households, are cost burdened; evictions have risen; and the country is seeing the highest homelessness counts on record.

1: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/price-fix...

2: https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing-2024

I agree with this answer the most. There's a vocal segment of society that are very active on social media and tend to dominate these sorts of discussions, while the bulk of the population is just living life.

I'm inclined to agree with the stats that show things are going well, and that crisis sentiment is just that - sentiment.

The reality is that there is much more cash in the market since the corona, which reduced the value of cash.

On the paper, the numbers look good, but the reality is shit due to underlying inflation because you can spend way less with the same amount of money.

As a result, valuations of companies also soars, not because everything is great, but because the cash is losing value.

Deaths of despair are at an all-time high while fertility hovers at an all-time low. Are these merely artifacts of social media or is it possible that there is something going on beyond that?

And another question - if social media is so harmful, then what of all the people on this site who helped to build it? Are they villains of the modern era, magnifying unhappiness throughout the world?

I think the deaths of despair trend is much less related to the economy than people have postulated. But yes, a doomful online community seems like it would absolutely make this trend worse.

> And another question - if social media is so harmful, then what of all the people on this site who helped to build it? Are they villains of the modern era, magnifying unhappiness throughout the world?

Does this not describe Zuckerberg? But yeah, I'm here. But I would argue HN in particular gives a much less strong "hit" of dopamine when doomscrolling.

Each side (those using social media to highlight systemic failures / those too 'busy' contributing to said failures to use social media) thinks the other has their head buried in the sand.

It reminds me of how, depending on the type of person you ask, you'll get conflicting answers on who the 'parasites' are in the movie Parasite.

If you help enshitify the next Big Thing and get paid doing it, are you contributing to society? Or contributing to its growing problems?

> median household income is increasing the fastest it has in 80 years even adjusting for inflation

I am not sure about that, inflation was quite high during 2022-2023 and prices didn't go down. It is true that inflation is down right now - as this is an election year; however you still have to pay for current prices with what you get as your current salary.

Psychologically, if prices go up, you think "oh no, inflation!" but when your wages rise concomitantly, you think "I worked hard; I deserve this raise for my great performance"

People think about prices in terms of macroeconomic factors, but their own income as the result of individual factors.

not sure that everyone is getting a raise this year.

After a layoff, I'm making less in nominal terms (forget real terms) than I did in 2020. That said, I'm in a much happier position (sadly I think only for the time being) than I was after escaping a private-equity-created misery factory, so that's a plus at least.

^ Case in point: you discuss only your individual situation, not a word of this is about the macroeconomic environment driving your employers' decisions.

Oh, I think Private Equity is quite in control of a large portion of the macro economy, much to the horror of American workers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com