My own type of good economy/bad economy musing. . . .
By GDP, if my income increases by $1,000/year and I spend all of that surplus on sports betting, the economy is still $1,000 better and my personal and disposable income increase by the same amount. In this sense, we can "feel poor," that is, our economic prospects increase while our well-being decreases. Sprawl and car dependence work in similar fashion: they code economically as income increases, while they decrease QoL.
Another shrinking product: breakfast at a diner. In the past, a diner breakfast included eggs, toast, choice of meat and coffee. Now some diners have taken out coffee, which has to be bought separately.
This is also part of why YIMBYs have such a tough time - it would be a lot easier to get people to agree with building more if they built like they did before WWII (but with more bathrooms and central air). It would almost be worth crashing the economy to get prewar architecture for cheap.
At least you’re in DC where they still build with brick. The PNW uses the cheapest materials, for the highest cost, and what is built is ugly AND impractical
On the good/bad economy, I think it very much depends on how you look at it because it's *very* uneven across the population. If you focus on the macro economic national signs (stock market, inflation, employment numbers), by these measure the economy is doing very well. But if you look at wages and prices of inelastic goods like gasoline and food, there are definite pressures. Sound the current rhetoric in the national political discourse? That's how we have two concurrent "realities". But as is with all things, holistically it can be both because the situation is complicated and nuanced (not something in our national discourse) and different people benefit from different things. Ultimately, I believe it's a result of the growing 40 year chasm of income inequality.
Teenagers manning the McDonald's front is a sign of a good economy. That means no capable worker needs to do that because they have better / better paying jobs to do.
Decline of quality by itself is not. It means something different: they can't operate in better jobs. They can't operate even in a very simple one.
Let's have more of discussions like this! Loved the staging of the questions. Very brisk and to the point. Many of us are, indeed, changing how we shop and consume. That's real but voluntary. But there's another issue lurking, of the involuntary nature, and that's the matter of service access. There's a senior population moving toward limitations that must be mitigated by service providers. Who will provide these services? Will they be accessible and feasible?
On the credit card thing, that could be played two ways: "a discount" for cash or "a surcharge" for credit. That said, I don't see why the seller should pay for the convenience of the buyer, after all electronic payments are really for the convenience of the buyer primarily and secondarily does benefit the seller with reduced friction, but is that worth the 3%? I think we bristle at seeing the transaction cost since it historically has been hidden and either absorbed by the seller or implicitly added to the price. When I am dealing with a local business where the money stays in the local economy that has built the transaction cost into the price, I always pay with cash/check/debit so as to essentially "tip" them 3%. A national chain store, meh. I'm especially sensitive to this on bikepacking trips in rural areas at small mom and pop stores where I'm sure their margins are very thin.
Doesn’t it also benefit stores to not deal primarily in cash for security reasons? I wonder to what extent that outweighs the negative of credit card surcharges. Perhaps we should nationalize the credit card companies and operate the payment network for free.
I get annoyed at PNW gas prices for doing this, too. They have different cash prices vs debit/credit card prices
My own type of good economy/bad economy musing. . . .
By GDP, if my income increases by $1,000/year and I spend all of that surplus on sports betting, the economy is still $1,000 better and my personal and disposable income increase by the same amount. In this sense, we can "feel poor," that is, our economic prospects increase while our well-being decreases. Sprawl and car dependence work in similar fashion: they code economically as income increases, while they decrease QoL.
Another shrinking product: breakfast at a diner. In the past, a diner breakfast included eggs, toast, choice of meat and coffee. Now some diners have taken out coffee, which has to be bought separately.
Great piece, as always.
This is also part of why YIMBYs have such a tough time - it would be a lot easier to get people to agree with building more if they built like they did before WWII (but with more bathrooms and central air). It would almost be worth crashing the economy to get prewar architecture for cheap.
At least you’re in DC where they still build with brick. The PNW uses the cheapest materials, for the highest cost, and what is built is ugly AND impractical
On the good/bad economy, I think it very much depends on how you look at it because it's *very* uneven across the population. If you focus on the macro economic national signs (stock market, inflation, employment numbers), by these measure the economy is doing very well. But if you look at wages and prices of inelastic goods like gasoline and food, there are definite pressures. Sound the current rhetoric in the national political discourse? That's how we have two concurrent "realities". But as is with all things, holistically it can be both because the situation is complicated and nuanced (not something in our national discourse) and different people benefit from different things. Ultimately, I believe it's a result of the growing 40 year chasm of income inequality.
Teenagers manning the McDonald's front is a sign of a good economy. That means no capable worker needs to do that because they have better / better paying jobs to do.
Decline of quality by itself is not. It means something different: they can't operate in better jobs. They can't operate even in a very simple one.
Let's have more of discussions like this! Loved the staging of the questions. Very brisk and to the point. Many of us are, indeed, changing how we shop and consume. That's real but voluntary. But there's another issue lurking, of the involuntary nature, and that's the matter of service access. There's a senior population moving toward limitations that must be mitigated by service providers. Who will provide these services? Will they be accessible and feasible?
On the credit card thing, that could be played two ways: "a discount" for cash or "a surcharge" for credit. That said, I don't see why the seller should pay for the convenience of the buyer, after all electronic payments are really for the convenience of the buyer primarily and secondarily does benefit the seller with reduced friction, but is that worth the 3%? I think we bristle at seeing the transaction cost since it historically has been hidden and either absorbed by the seller or implicitly added to the price. When I am dealing with a local business where the money stays in the local economy that has built the transaction cost into the price, I always pay with cash/check/debit so as to essentially "tip" them 3%. A national chain store, meh. I'm especially sensitive to this on bikepacking trips in rural areas at small mom and pop stores where I'm sure their margins are very thin.
Doesn’t it also benefit stores to not deal primarily in cash for security reasons? I wonder to what extent that outweighs the negative of credit card surcharges. Perhaps we should nationalize the credit card companies and operate the payment network for free.
I get annoyed at PNW gas prices for doing this, too. They have different cash prices vs debit/credit card prices
People equate annoyance they experience since COVID to a bad economy. Heaven helps us!
If the constitution guarantees us anything it’s the right to never be annoyed, right?