In the last 5 to 10 years everything seems to suck: product’s and services quality plummeted, everything from homes to cars to food became really expensive, technology stopped to help us to be something designed to f@ck with us and our money, nobody seems to be able to hold a job anymore, everyone is broke. Life seems worse in general.

Why? Did COVID made this happen? How?

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Shareholder value. Companies are cutting everything they can to increase stakeholder value: wages, quality, support, ownership, etc.

  • DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    You’re finally realizing the end game of capitalism. The 1% trying to hoard everything and milk 99% of the population. I call them piggies because they’re gluttonous with money.

    Edit: you’re

    • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Thing is most people on earth would do the same if given the opportunity to become ultra wealthy.

      The issue is the system allows people to become ultra wealthy

      • Disaster@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        No, most people would not.

        Most people would share, or hit a point and think “OK, that’s enough for anything I really want personally… I’m gonna try and help out now…”

        Nobody in their right mind should want a world where they are privately wealthy, but publically impoverished.
        Because then, you have no security.
        Someone will always be gunning for you.
        You can stave it off by layering brute force, and laws, but there is no such thing as 100% secure. Eventually something will make it through, and wreak havoc. And because all you now care about, over everything, is whatever paltry “wealth” you’ve managed to secure, the catastrophe is magnified orders of magnitude. You have no real friends or community to turn to, nobody who would support you if you didn’t have the most, and the rules didn’t make you “king” because of it.

        It’s a sickness.

        • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          We live in the materialistic era of wanting more. Given minimal effort, the overwhelming majority of people would not stop until they have tens or hundreds of millions of net worth.

          No matter what you say you’re just wrong

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        The issue with the system is that we are locked within it. You can’t escape capitalism. It has superseded law. We are just tumbling around in the algorithm.

      • 31337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nah, only about 5% of the population have antisocial personality disorders. That’s a lot of people, but not “most.”

        • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          But is it possible that extreme wealth breeds antisocial disorders? Think about it–how does a normal person justify having more money than they could ever spend? You have to separate yourself from the average person, or otherwise think you somehow deserve it (while others suffer).

          Extreme wealth is poison, both for the wealthy and for the exploited.

          • 31337@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, I agree. Our economic system and some of our culture encourages and rewards antisocial behavior.

          • kava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            I think of it like the Stanford Prison Experiment. As a human, we are meant to play roles in a hierarchical structure.

            So if I put you in a role, certain parts of your personality are going to come out subconsciously. You become the right person to fit the role.

            Pretty much like you said- if you are given wild amounts of money you start to justify it and become someone else.

        • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          If Jeff bezoz offered you his position in Amazon along with his entire net worth, do you think you (or 19/20 people) would disband that privileged position down to a point where no one would think you’re ultra rich poison?

          No, most would give away some but continue to live a overly luxurious lifestyle. My point is proven because it’s the same reason why people enter the lottery, for extreme wealth

          • 31337@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Eh, I’m not sure what position Bezos has now. If I ran Amazon, I’d probably covertly support unionization of the entire workforce. I don’t really care about a luxurious lifestyle, and don’t plan on having kids to give an inheritance to, so yeah, I’d probably just give almost all away and buy a small farm to garden in and work on open source projects or something. Like, that’s my dream. It would actually be really hard to figure out how to give all that money away. Could provide the initial funding to like 100,000 decently sized worker-coops I guess.

            Edit: I should say, I don’t think most people care so little about luxury and money as I do. My problem is not so much about people having wealth (though wealth is a limited resources, so that does mean others will not have it), but my problem is what people do to get such wealth. It usually involves deceiving your network of associates and exploiting your employees. I do not think most people would be ok with forcing their employees to shit in bags.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think it is the natural result of capitalism, that’s what happens when you let it run. The system makes it inevitable.

      • butterflyattack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, this is why capitalism should be treated like a dangerous dog and kept on a short leash. It can kind of work out for a while when a government restrains it, ensures that legislation exists and is enforced to protect workers, the environment, and consumers. Strong unions are a good sign. This never seems to last though, because the governments get bought eventually.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        The scale and proportions of this are all fucked, the rich take substantially more from the state than the non-rich. Is this a sarcastic meme or is this like shaming ‘welfare queens’?

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          “The scale and proportions of this are all fucked, the rich take substantially more from the state than the non-rich.” - Yes, absolutely! The parasitical rich benefit most of all! All the more reason to abolish the host - abolish the state! When the poor have more opportunity to enter the market, due to the abolishion of the state and it crony class, then the free market can raise the tide for all leaving the need for charity far less. There will be no constructed dependent class. There will be a rising again of mutual societies, unities etc that benefited the poor before gov coopted those services.

          • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I agree we should abolish the state but you imply markets to help the poor, do you envision a capitalist structure without a state? What would stop the current hoarders of wealth from continuing their dominance and creating an even more unequal corporate feudal state?

      • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        nice meme, bold of you to assume however that all rich people don’t take all the money from the state they can get their hands on

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s is on the graph. But it neglects the soft benefits of government that disproportionately help the rich: like the expensive police state that keeps them from the guillotine.

          • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            Ah but if you ask this guy that’s because of big gubmint meddling in an imaginary, utopian free and fair market

            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              If you ask me there is no utopia - but there is the attempt to minimize away coercion & manipulation. It is completely Utopian to think you can create an all powerful political class and not expect exploitation by psychopaths and sociopaths.

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          ALL rich people? That would be quite the assumption! Many rich are parasites that use regulatory capture, artificial cartels, lobbying, bribery, threats etc because the state exists. Other rich have attained great value by giving the world much value. Don’t let envy eat you away!

          • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Do you think they would be unable to form their cartels if the state was abolished? Pray tell, what’s to stop them from doing so?

            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              The question should be who will enable their cartel without the state law enforcing it? What is to stop them get a large share of the market - cartel status? Well, their competition providing better goods and services!

                • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  NAP, aka respect for private property rights. If a society does not respect the NAP then it is a society based foremost on the threat of violence. What is government - the threat of violence - the threat of force. So, if a society allowed private militia to kill competitors you would end up with a gang ruling over others - you know - like government. So, yes you need a society with respect for private property rights/NAP. Would all people be peaceful? Heck no! Does this mean there will also not be private institutions that uphold the law - uphold respect for private property rights? Of course! People will still need security, decision making and justice! A peaceful society with respect for the NAP would NOT allow a private militia to violate others rights! Business (in the absence of government favouritism) survives on good products, services and reputation. Sending a militia against you opponents does not do well for your reputation! So ultimately you have a choice - government, which is an involuntary institution with a monopoly on force and rule making that serves the elite to the detriment of others OR A free society with respect for private property rights that is more decentralised and snuffs out any trouble makers.

    • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Greed, wanting stuff, precipitates giving value in return for value. Regardless of motives everybody benefits. This is a free market.

      Throw in an institution that can manipulate & distort free market forces - government - then you get parasites that use the violence of that institution for non reciprocated greed. This creates distortions in wealth and power in favour of the scrupulous.

      • Fog0555@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Doesn’t that assume that resources were at one point distributed fairly? If you have all the value, you can devalue everyone else.

        • Lilweed2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I mean, I think it has to do with different kind of value, some have capital, some have services, they would not work without eachother

        • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago
          1. No. Why would it assume that?
          2. How so? The only way I see to have all the value & devalue others is to be an absolute dictator that has enslaved everyone. This of course is not possible in a free market as it is all about private property rights/self ownership.
          • Fog0555@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago
            1. Because if they weren’t distributed equally, some people would unfairly have more capital than others, which means a fair trade where people exchange the precise value of an item leaves some people with inherent setbacks.
            2. If I don’t own property, then I am forced into wage-slavery, which means I don’t have time to myself to innovate or property to innovate. Even if I manage to buy some property, I can innovate some, but larger players with more capital and resources can out-compete me. The more money you have, the longer you can take to turn a profit, and drive others out of business.
            • anarchotaoist@links.hackliberty.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              I do not think you understand fairness or value. Life is not fair. You cannot expect it to be. To try to make it fair requires the initiation of force against another. The happenstance of an unfair life is different to the deliberate application of force to create what one thinks should be fair. Precise value??? All value is subjective! Setbacks? Every exchange that occurs happens due to the exchange making both parties life better - otherwise the exchange would not occur. You are viewing the world as a glass half empty rather than half full! Wage-slavery? There is not such thing! You own property - always! You own your body! Other peoples ability to generate wealth is something you have no right to interfere with just as much as they have no right to interfere with your body. You may not like the terms of contract but that is simply because you have no better option and you need to upskill. Innovate? If you are working you are gaining skills. Are you showing your worth or just doing the acceptable minimum to justify your employment? If the game is unfair - it is because the system (govenment) applies the law unfairly - not because others create value.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Capitalism. The longer Capitalism exists, the more it has to find new ways to stop/slow its own built-in death clock. If it doesn’t, it dies, due to problems like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall and rising disparity. Enshittification, so to speak.

    With each economic disaster, the wealthiest of the bourgeoisie can claim large swaths of cheaper Capital at a discount, compounding the issue into a form of neo-feudalism that will eventually collapse under its own weight.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      God forbid a post-scarcity world where the only currency is our reputation, honor, and credibility.

    • Welt@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s not “Capitalism”, it’s governments not doing their job in regulating capitalist practices, and instead embracing neoliberal economics. I don’t accept that all ownership is theft. Trade in goods and services benefits both parties. I am so sick of people using this shorthand word “capitalism” to describe what’s going on here. We’ve had capitalism for millennia, and it’s brought us longer, healthier and happier lives, and reduced warfare. It’s Thatcherite/Reaganomic practices by governments that are the problem, not the system of ownership of capital.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Liberal Democracies are of, by, and for the bourgeoisie. Because Capitalists have immense influence, the state will bend to their will.

        Trade is good. Capitalism is not. Capitalism is not trade, its a Mode of Production by which there are individual Capitalists and non-owner workers. We have not had Capitalism for millenia, but a few hundred years.

        Capitalism did not bring us healthier, longer, and happier lives, nor reduce warfare. Development did. Capitalism drives profit, that’s it, anything else is tangential to that end.

        I think you would do yourself a lot of good by reading theory.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I agree with your last point - and I may be a bit bourgeois (not to mention ignorant) myself. I’d appreciate recommendations if you wouldn’t mind.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s a ton of reflection and openness, so I just want to commend you for that. Fantastic to hear and see.

            Initially, I want to give a general basis for what can be considered bourgeois. The Bourgeoisie are those Capitalists who do not need to perform labor to survive, and earn their money via ownership alone. One can be a business owner actively and a member of the bourgeoisie if they can simply hire someone to manage in their place, but a member of the petite bourgeoisie cannot hire a manager to take their place and still make enough money to survive.

            As for general reading recommendations? You have a lot of paths you can go. I don’t personally recommend going full ML or full Anarchist right off the bat, usually it takes a lot of reflection to pick a tendency. I myself don’t even have a tendency I identify with, as I believe the process towards progress is unique for each country and state.

            If you want a real quick intro: Principles of Communism, by Engels, is an extremely quick read. Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein is another fantastic paper. The Communist Manifesto is good, but it’s extremely fiery and usually is better after you’re familiar with Marxism.

            If you want to get a quick intro that breaks more into the theory side (as in, you’ll be more well-read than the vast majority of online leftists with little effort), read both Value, Price, and Profit and Wage Labor and Capital by Marx. They are condensed and simplified versions of what Marx greatly elaborates on in Capital, his seminal masterwork.

            For Anarchism, An Anarchist FAQ is a good starting point. Note that Anarchists usually align with Marxists on analysis, but not on strategy.

            There’s also topics like Syndicalism, Market Socialism, the idea of Reform vs Revolution (Rosa Luxembourg has a good paper on that), and more, but those are fantastic bang for buck reads.

            If you still want more, you can always read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and The Conquest of Bread, the former for Marxism and the latter for Anarchism.

            Hope this helps! There are tons of YouTube videos as well that simplify Marxism as much as possible.

      • Atemu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        At the core, the issue is still deeply rooted within capitalism but governments should absolutely be doing their fucking jobs and curb the worst aspects of it a little until we’re ready for something better.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Fair point, I accept that. A bit like how democracy is the worst form of government apart from those other ones we tried.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Even then, there are still countless forms of democracy and democratic government. Democracy itself is a cool concept, the actual systems utilizing Democracy vary wildly, from the Soviet form, to the Chinese form, to the American form, to the European forms, to the forms practiced in more Anarchist societies like the EZLN and revolutionary Catalonia, and more.

            There’s direct Democracy, council Democracy, republican Democracy, proportional Democracy, parliamentary democracy, and far, far more.

      • pbbp [tous]@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        We’ve had capitalism for millennia

        No we haven’t. The historians that think capitalism started the earliest place its birth in the XIVth century. I think you’re confused about the definition of capitalism.

        • Welt@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s come and gone throughout the millennia, like certain pieces of knowledge. Eratosthenes very accurately calculated the circumference of the world in Ptolemaic Egypt and later on people thought the Earth was flat (and some morons still do). As for capitalism, look at prehistoric societies using shells as currency. What is that currency for?

      • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Capitalism is not millennia old. Capitalism (as commonly defined) only stared to take root after the black death (1350ish) flipped feudalism on its head. Suddenly the free and unfree peasant class had some control of their own destiny and could sell their skills to whomever they wanted at whatever price they could get. Serfs could declare themselves free. Land was often up for grabs.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        It’s not “Capitalism”, it’s governments not doing their job in regulating capitalist practices

        It’s Thatcherite/Reaganomic practices by governments that are the problem

        Hmm, I’m trying to remember what economic system both these countries have… Let’s call it “Bappitalism”. And if the economic model is so powerful that it influences the governmental one (lobbyists, military spending, etc), then yes, that is a problem.

          • Empricorn@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s not how forums or discussions in general work. For reference, read other comments on the internet, please.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think the enshitification of the Internet was sort of just what happens to everything once it gets monetized. It was already happening before COVID.

    On the other hand - when I was growing up, my city was rough. So much violent crime, bands would not come here, it was notorious. Now? No. Violet crime has decreased sharply, my kids grew up in a different world than I did.

    Jobs haven’t become less secure, or at least not in my experience, that change happened in the 1980s, and it’s been about the same since.

    Everyone is broke because of Ronald Reagan, for lack of a better way to explain it. Deregulation. Workers have gotten ever more productive without getting their cut of that increase in productivity and this is the endgame of that trend.

    • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      The rise in interest rates meant easy money dried up for corporations. They all had to “monitize” at the same time. That’s why enshitification happened everywhere at the same time. Things are easing. Enshitification will slow down.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    Capitalism arrived at its limit. Now it must do these shitty things to continue to grow profits. Basically it’s now cannibalising itself. Next there will be fascism and war so that it can reboot the machine.

    • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Someone is gonna come in here and complain like “ohh those commies are always blaming capitalism for everything!” But seriously, every point listed by OP is because we live under a system that requires endless growth for profit, this is the logical conclusion.

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    You see it all started when some dumb motherfuckers decided to leave the relatively plentiful African Savannah for the dead-land that was the desert. Then they had to invent agriculture and it was all downhill from there.

    • Phoonzang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Many were increasingly of the opinion that they’d all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.”

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’ve seen the argument made that there was no mental illness (non phyiso-neurological, I suppose?) And therefore civilization is worse per se.

      I mean… animals, disease, murder, rape, starvation, hydration… but still not living in the same ongoing trauma anxiety state of today

      There’s no objective “answer” to this, just sharing an idea I’ve seen

  • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Don’t forget that global climate change has really kicked into gear the last few years. Just 10 years ago, summer in Arizona was terrible, but you wouldn’t get third degree burns from falling on the ground. The polar vortex is getting all screwed up, causing severe cold in winter on one half of the northern hemisphere while the other half experiences very very mild winter weather. global weather phenomena are getting more and more severe, and still the people who actually can effect change on large scale are loathe to do so because it would hurt their bottom line. Hell in a hand basket would be an apt descriptor for where we’re going and how we’re getting there.

  • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    So, before I say “capitalism” like everyone else id like to argue many of the monetary/economic policy can be used by either authoritarian state capitalists or free capitalists alike.

    https://42macro.com/education Edit: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjqe6xtZYTfvA4pHs0HgJsQ

    This can be useful^ it’s a brief read. Also I love Adam Taggart, he’s a really good person to follow on YouTube for economics.

    Things were getting bad for a while, and we kick the can down the road until an exponentially worse problem arrives, then repeat. Let’s look at COVID for now tho instead of going back decades

    COVID happens, society has to adapt, and now there’s growth issues with the economy (growth domestic product or gross domestic income)

    First, government gives a shit ton of stimulus checks to the consumer market. A market is a collection of buyers and sellers. The consumer market is a collection of buyers and sellers who spend their money on one thing and don’t retain that value. So most of the stimmy money went from consumers to corporations. To give you an idea, over the last 3 years we’ve seen 35% of inflation that is never going away, it will forever weigh on the consumer market (and that’s the market that needs to be well off for an economy to be anything more than the stock/financial market)

    Second, Fed sees an incoming recession so they lower interest rates to make banking loans cheaper to encourage investment to increase growth again. This means people who are not suffering from the economy can easily afford another house since they’re basically not paying any interest on it, then rent it out to Airbnb or whatever.

    All these things cause growth in the short term, while making inflation a much worse problem in the long term.

    FED starts raising interest rates slowly over the last year or 2. Now they’re about to lower them again which is a sign we’re in for another recession, but let’s look at what raising interest rates did:

    Banks operate on a very tight margin and raising interest rates hurts banks in the short term and takes a while for markets to react to (which is part of the reason why we saw so many bank closures like silicon valley bank)

    But raising interest rates also makes it more expensive for people to afford mortgage payments.

    H.O.P.E: housing , orders, profits, employment

    When mortgage payments got more expensive housing got expensive. When housing gets expensive orders go down and/or credit card usage goes up (which is another separate problem / indicator). When orders go down profits go down, and when profits go down employment goes down.

    It should be worth noting the one thing J Powell did right was creating slack in job openings to prevent a complete crash in the labor market, but that’s the last thing to crash in a recession so we’re still just kicking the can down the road.

    That’s the best analysis I can do with respect to COVID, but some other interesting things:

    The average boomer is 2 years into retirement. The labor force is going to continue shrinking for the next 7 years. It won’t be this bad in America, but in south east asian countries, there’s going to reach a point where there are more old people than young people, and when that happens there’s not enough people to care for the elderly and support the rest of the economy, so both tend to suffer. America will feel this pain as well, but our population “pyramid” is more of an hourglass, where south east asian is an upside down pyramid

    Also, geopolitical tensions are likely going to get worse over the next few years. China manufactures everything consumers like that don’t have to do with defense, so things like smartphones are going to get much more expensive , and tech stocks are likely to suffer. Edit: not to mention food and gas prices increasing from Ukraine war (which isn’t in the Feds basket of goods for inflation which is HILARIOUSLY STUPID considering that’s their excuse for inflation)

    Also, there’s tons of shadow banks with stealth liquidity where there’s no information how much money they have. So however bad inflation was the last few years and will continue to get with the Fed cutting rates, it can get MUCH worse once those banks start releasing their liquidity.

    So, things are bad and they’re going to get worse before there’s a chance things get better. I really recommend listening to Adam Taggart and the people he interviews to help form your decision making

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Your post was highly informative and surprisingly apolitical given the topics at hand. High five man.

      I’ll read your link later.

    • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Gas prices feed through to consumers by raising the cost of energy for everyone except those not using gas. So it seems reasonable to not double count it by adding it to the basket as well.

      The only real gas consumers use is for heating and cooking - and that is very low volume compared to the impact on us from costs to producers going up.

      • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        From Google:

        Examples of shadow banks or financial intermediaries not subject to regulation include hedge funds, private equity funds, mortgage lenders, and even large investment banks

        Shadow banks aren’t illegal, just have loose regulations

  • Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    6 months ago

    A significant part of it is that for a couple decades our economy was based on bullshit. Instead of companies being profitable, especially in tech, their primary goal was to attract venture capital. There was a lot of money floating around with not many easy options to make it grow. Investors were willing to take big risks for the possibility of big future returns. Executives ywe’re happy to spend as much as they could and hire as much as they could because the more they spent the higher the company’s valuation would be, regardless of current profit.

    With the interest rates rising, money is abandoning riskier investments. All these places that had tons of cash flowing in because they might be the next big thing are suddenly trying to be profitable now.

    This is compounded by companies wanting constant growth, and flat out refusing to take any of the hit. Investors want companies to show profit now, and goddamn if they’re not going to deliver. (Even if it does cost future revenue and stability.) So instead they’re trying to push the entire burden onto consumers and are just testing how much they will tolerate.

    Are you still buying coke and Pepsi products? Because their prices have doubled in five years. For a lot of cheap things, especially food, demand is fairly inelastic. People gotta eat, and they’re not looking to change any habits based on prices.

    I, for one have cut way back on coke/Pepsi products. It’s not because I can’t afford $13/case, because I can. I can afford $20/case without really noticing. I refuse, mostly out of spite. (Unless there’s a good sale.) Those companies don’t need to improve their 2019 profit margin of 20% (it’s now 23%). First, that profit margin excludes the ridiculous salaries of execs. Second, 20% of $13 is already a bigger number than 20% of $6 was. They don’t need to both increase their profit percentage WHILE increasing their prices. They’re double dipping. And they’re passing none of that windfall to consumers or the government or to their employees.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t know how to phrase this, and it’s just my silly opinion, but I also think the thing that has changed is that our populations have gotten so large with enough chunks of it financially illiterate that it’s become impossible to put pressure on corporations.

      What I mean is, for every one of YOU there are 3 idiots that will pay the inflated price and put it on the card because they don’t know / care how to spend.

      It’s the same trend everywhere.

      Cars, heated seat subscription? Something that should instantly nuke a company, barley does anything because enough idiots with money are buying it.

      1000 $ phones with less features? Again, idiots buy it.

      You can go down any of the enshitification targets and you’ll find a ripe group of consumers allowing the company to hold out and wait until you and I HAVE to buy their product at inflated prices because we’re reached a point where our old item has died.

      That is the trend that I’ve noticed. Bad behavior isn’t getting punished because enough morons are oblivious.

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I rarely buy sodas at all anymore and it’s not just due to prices. They changed the recipes of those things and turned them into oily, disgusting messes. I’d bet dollars to donuts they overloaded the sodas with cheap corn syrup and cut out the spices and flavorings they normally would have had to lower overhead.

      More enshittification from an economy in collapse.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        I tried to look for local alternatives, but no one competes on the cheap end.

        I’ve just turned to a lot more tea. Just got a second infuser.

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Here’s the thing… There’s always shit hitting the fan, that doesn’t change. What has changed is our perception. We see everything that happens everywhere all the time right in the palm of our hands. Our ability to have control over any of it hasn’t changed much. I was born in the 60s when a president, presidential candidate and a civil rights leader were assassinated which is pretty intense and everyone is aware of it. There were other events that were “big deals” at the time that younger people today aren’t aware of. It’s a thing that strikes me as I get older. I guess that’s how it goes, we all together stress over one thing or another. The first one I remember getting wrapped up in was the Swine Flu outbreak in the 70’s. My 5th grade class got a new textbook with a picture right inside the cover of a kid getting an inoculation shot. The needle device looked more like an industrial staple gun than a traditional needle and I was scared shirtless of it. I waited for my turn to get that shot and it never came. The next news headline replaced Swine Flu and the whole thing blew over. My point is these things come and they go, it’s nothing new. I’m not saying don’t be concerned about the state of things just don’t stress out too hard. It’s not on your shoulders to save the world at least not yours alone. You do have an effect on things just not everything.

    • iarigby@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      When you’re going forward and progressing, it is easier to forget things and move on. However, in present case, in all areas there are numbers showing that basic necessities have objectively gotten worse. Home ownership has become unreachable for an average earner, wealth gap is higher, anti vaxers are bringing back diseases that used to be under control, women are losing their bodily autonomy, and extremist ideologies that used to be crazy people talk are getting double digit support. And there seems to be no indications of them improving.

  • Æsc@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Are you American? Because I seem to recall between five and ten years ago a particular event that changed the way we ran a lot of the government.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      People underestimate the depths of the fuckedupedness of practical every day functioning regulating govt shit as a result of it

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    My theory? The Mayans were right. 2012 was the end of the cycle, and so the 12 years before and 12 years after are the transition period.

    So we’re in the final lap, we just have to make it to December

    (I’m not coping, you’re coping)

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 months ago

    Covid made things worse, but the fundamentals were bad.

    We are in the middle of a massive tightening of the labor market as boomers retire and there aren’t enough young adults to fill the gap. This is causing major ripples in the market, with a very antagonistic relationship forming between capital trying to keep labor costs down and labor tired of the bullshit.

    This is causing some mild inflation, so companies are jacking up prices since they have an excuse to. This increased inflation is making the time value of money cost more. So now you have companies that were losing money having to scramble to finally generate a profit. This is causing the enshittification of the Internet and the loss of jobs in the tech sector.

    The worse economy is causing political problems as it is harder for politicians to justify their positions in power. This encourages conflict between nations and the justification to deny some people of social benefits to create an underclass to benefit voters.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I agree with this, and I’d like to add that the wealth gap focusing on funneling money to the top is obviously not helping the quality of products, responsible production , or fair compensation for most of the world.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, but I’m trying to explain why it is happening. You’ve hit market saturation in so many companies when the only way to fuel growth now is to reduce costs.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Cumulative generational focus on acquiring and consolidating capital explains the why comprehensively, at least in the states.

          Monopolies, market saturation, minimizing cost at all costs, poor labor compensation are all symptoms of a system focused primarily on acquiring and consolidating capital.