One thing overlooked in Burrito Discourse (or Sensitive Young Men sounding like an advanced dementia patient) is that a much greater percentage of household income went to food back in The Good Old (cheaper) Days.
We had staggering levels of immigration for 4 years and quite high immigration for a decade or more before that. We have globalized our supply chain to the max. Now tell me Scott, has it made life cheap? Is housing cheap? Are burritos cheap? (Is social security funded?) Did we get the benefits that flooding our society with immigrants was supposed yo deliver? Or are the wage suppression gurus also imagining a bygone world, a brief moment in time where outsourcing labor suddenly flattened costs, but now that effect has worn off and oftentimes prices are, predictably, what the market will bear?
"have" not has. Burritos are relatively cheap but housing is not. Most consumer goods are still cheap but what's not is housing and healthcare. The article addresses the rest of your questions. We'd have more expensive goods with restriction and trade protection. People have been happy to say they'd pay that price.
What I’m saying is that we might not have more expensive goods with immigration restriction and trade protection, especially not after a few years. My car was built in Indiana, but it cost about the same as the other car I was considering at the time, a Maverick, which is built in Mexico. I recently purchased a sofa made in America for 30% less than another model I was considering that was made in Vietnam. Want a new Iphone—should be cheap right, since it’s made by Chinese serfs. Nope. Where are all these huge savings I was supposed to get? The trade off you’re claiming just isn’t there for anything besides, idk, pool toys and Halloween decorations
Autarky is not the same as self-sufficiency, and is highly undesirable from a nationalist standpoint.
Tariffs should only be used to negotiate freer trade in the long run, which will reduce the cost of goods and offset some of the local cost increases from immigration restriction. The long-run effect of restrictionism will be cost reduction however, as labor in foreign countries becomes cheaper.
We do not want higher nominal wages. We want higher real wages. The sound money we want to revert to would result in universally lower prices over time including wages, as a stable quantity of dollars chases more and more value in goods and services. Wage cuts would not be painful however, because they primarily would take the form of lower wages for new openings of the same existing type of roles. Because the general price level falls faster than nominal wages (because capital productivity growth exceeds labor productivity growth), real wages increase.
I grow my own food, as I oppose the hollowing of society downstream of the establishment of American latifundiae. Doordash does not a great nation make.
1) Food spending as a share of income has been static in the US since about the turn of the century.
2) I remember a tweet from a few months ago. Some administration account was posting videos of all the things that had been restored in DC, I think it was that fountain they cleaned off and got working again. Someone in replies complained something along the lines of "how does this make gas and groceries cheaper". Got that? Government is not allowed to do anything, even its normal responsibilities of maintaining public spaces, because that wastes resources that could be put toward making gasandgroceries cheaper.
(It is effective altruism's mosquito-net-maxxing logic, applied to the cost of living.)
"How does maintaining public spaces help me consoom more" is the most American sentiment imaginable.
3) Production wages and consumption wages are antagonistic (if wages go up faster than labor productivity, unit labour costs rise - guess what that does to output prices). No one wants to admit that wages are an input cost. Fortunately, deporting illegals will do little to worsen the problem, and of course will save vast amounts of eg. tax dollars. So overall we'll be well ahead by deporting illegals en masse.
4) Abolishing property taxes should be instant death for any politician's aspirations. That would destroy the revenue base of local governments and cause other, less economically-efficient taxes, to be raised. And for what? Property taxes are capitalised into the value of the property - if you cut property taxes, property prices go up. (Don't bother trying to explain this to boomers - it's like talking to a brick wall.)
(Complaining about the removal of the SALT deduction is the prog way of complaining about property taxes.)
Okay, so I take a lot of flak from some on the right side of things for enjoying amber lynn getting pounded by Bobby Vitale, so then why does Scott get to have a porn thumbnail?
Not sure what you mean by "Americans" here. Is it the 58% white ones? Our demographic reality and demographic future means that "Americans" means nothing except someone who lives and works within our borders.
I think the question should rather be: which demographic is okay with a $20 burrito? Which demographic is willing to endure economic hardship for the future of their children?
Young people of any race: yes and no.
Suburban whites: yes and yes.
Rural whites: no and maybe, depending on the disability payments.
Boomer whites: yes because I just sold my property in New Jersey, and no.
Middle-aged blacks: no and no.
Hispanic, Indian, and Chinese immigrants: no and yes.
You edited this post but still left in typos. It would be "costs" not "cost." Contrary to what liberals believe, you don't have to be a white nationalist to not want massive demographic change. Your first question seems to undermine your other ones. I'd focus more on figuring out what you're trying to say rather than rushing to try to own me with stupid questions in the comments
The affordability crisis (which is real) predates the meager rise in wages, which is well below the rate of inflation. Saying (or at least implying) the higher wages caused the increase in living costs is shit tier libertarian cringe. Someone could believe that a white ethnostate is neither achievable nor desirable but still believe violent rhetoric/disinfo against whites (and actual racist violence against them) is wrong and bad for society. False dilemma.
For your last question, my guess is my answer would differ from Scott's (so yes, good for you, there is a degree of subjectivity here...aren't you smart) but America prior to the tipping point (that is prior to whites being on track for minority status) is just fine. The America of 2000 was pretty damn good. But for someone a little more right wing minded, your argument is even more disingenuous, given that this country was like waaaaaay more than 90 percent white until the day before yesterday. Or, maybe you're just actually that stupid and didn't know. I'll split the difference.
Which Americans is he speaking about? I’d gladly live out my days in a single wide eating tuna from a can if it meant my line would be free of today’s tyranny and ethnic cleansing. Freaking out about $20 burritos isn’t in a vacuum — we’re also being discriminated against and having our progeny’s birthright stolen. The combination means something. It’s not about convenience, it’s about watching, feeling our standard of living decline in realtime as the stage is set for the blue tyrants to once again take the helm. Spoiler: vote harder will be the refrain. In the meantime “get used to it chuds, you demand too much and bootstrap” articles telling us to enjoy the slow boil. The issue is the lack of will to change because GDP line must go up.
There's line literally in the article saying the average person reading this piece would say "yes" to the question, but that would not be the average American. Thank you for not reading past the headline.
Patrick, the article is sympathetic to the problem you're claiming to want solved but presents the case that the average voter may be unprepared to make the sacrifices necessary to solve it. Instead of thinking about solutions to convince the average voter to make the tradeoffs you claim to desire, you get upset at the author for bringing up that there's a problem. Your behavior would suggest to an impartial observer that you don't actually care about this problem but just want to get mad about it online.
One thing overlooked in Burrito Discourse (or Sensitive Young Men sounding like an advanced dementia patient) is that a much greater percentage of household income went to food back in The Good Old (cheaper) Days.
We had staggering levels of immigration for 4 years and quite high immigration for a decade or more before that. We have globalized our supply chain to the max. Now tell me Scott, has it made life cheap? Is housing cheap? Are burritos cheap? (Is social security funded?) Did we get the benefits that flooding our society with immigrants was supposed yo deliver? Or are the wage suppression gurus also imagining a bygone world, a brief moment in time where outsourcing labor suddenly flattened costs, but now that effect has worn off and oftentimes prices are, predictably, what the market will bear?
"have" not has. Burritos are relatively cheap but housing is not. Most consumer goods are still cheap but what's not is housing and healthcare. The article addresses the rest of your questions. We'd have more expensive goods with restriction and trade protection. People have been happy to say they'd pay that price.
What I’m saying is that we might not have more expensive goods with immigration restriction and trade protection, especially not after a few years. My car was built in Indiana, but it cost about the same as the other car I was considering at the time, a Maverick, which is built in Mexico. I recently purchased a sofa made in America for 30% less than another model I was considering that was made in Vietnam. Want a new Iphone—should be cheap right, since it’s made by Chinese serfs. Nope. Where are all these huge savings I was supposed to get? The trade off you’re claiming just isn’t there for anything besides, idk, pool toys and Halloween decorations
Autarky is not the same as self-sufficiency, and is highly undesirable from a nationalist standpoint.
Tariffs should only be used to negotiate freer trade in the long run, which will reduce the cost of goods and offset some of the local cost increases from immigration restriction. The long-run effect of restrictionism will be cost reduction however, as labor in foreign countries becomes cheaper.
We do not want higher nominal wages. We want higher real wages. The sound money we want to revert to would result in universally lower prices over time including wages, as a stable quantity of dollars chases more and more value in goods and services. Wage cuts would not be painful however, because they primarily would take the form of lower wages for new openings of the same existing type of roles. Because the general price level falls faster than nominal wages (because capital productivity growth exceeds labor productivity growth), real wages increase.
I grow my own food, as I oppose the hollowing of society downstream of the establishment of American latifundiae. Doordash does not a great nation make.
Some jumbled thoughts:
1) Food spending as a share of income has been static in the US since about the turn of the century.
2) I remember a tweet from a few months ago. Some administration account was posting videos of all the things that had been restored in DC, I think it was that fountain they cleaned off and got working again. Someone in replies complained something along the lines of "how does this make gas and groceries cheaper". Got that? Government is not allowed to do anything, even its normal responsibilities of maintaining public spaces, because that wastes resources that could be put toward making gasandgroceries cheaper.
(It is effective altruism's mosquito-net-maxxing logic, applied to the cost of living.)
"How does maintaining public spaces help me consoom more" is the most American sentiment imaginable.
3) Production wages and consumption wages are antagonistic (if wages go up faster than labor productivity, unit labour costs rise - guess what that does to output prices). No one wants to admit that wages are an input cost. Fortunately, deporting illegals will do little to worsen the problem, and of course will save vast amounts of eg. tax dollars. So overall we'll be well ahead by deporting illegals en masse.
4) Abolishing property taxes should be instant death for any politician's aspirations. That would destroy the revenue base of local governments and cause other, less economically-efficient taxes, to be raised. And for what? Property taxes are capitalised into the value of the property - if you cut property taxes, property prices go up. (Don't bother trying to explain this to boomers - it's like talking to a brick wall.)
(Complaining about the removal of the SALT deduction is the prog way of complaining about property taxes.)
*sees burrito picture*
Okay, so I take a lot of flak from some on the right side of things for enjoying amber lynn getting pounded by Bobby Vitale, so then why does Scott get to have a porn thumbnail?
Give us affordable housing. It is the biggest thing!
Not sure what you mean by "Americans" here. Is it the 58% white ones? Our demographic reality and demographic future means that "Americans" means nothing except someone who lives and works within our borders.
I think the question should rather be: which demographic is okay with a $20 burrito? Which demographic is willing to endure economic hardship for the future of their children?
Young people of any race: yes and no.
Suburban whites: yes and yes.
Rural whites: no and maybe, depending on the disability payments.
Boomer whites: yes because I just sold my property in New Jersey, and no.
Middle-aged blacks: no and no.
Hispanic, Indian, and Chinese immigrants: no and yes.
What is the point of higher wages if life cost more ?
Also if your not a White nationalist why does immigration matter ?
You say an America that looks like America what does that even mean ?
You edited this post but still left in typos. It would be "costs" not "cost." Contrary to what liberals believe, you don't have to be a white nationalist to not want massive demographic change. Your first question seems to undermine your other ones. I'd focus more on figuring out what you're trying to say rather than rushing to try to own me with stupid questions in the comments
The affordability crisis (which is real) predates the meager rise in wages, which is well below the rate of inflation. Saying (or at least implying) the higher wages caused the increase in living costs is shit tier libertarian cringe. Someone could believe that a white ethnostate is neither achievable nor desirable but still believe violent rhetoric/disinfo against whites (and actual racist violence against them) is wrong and bad for society. False dilemma.
For your last question, my guess is my answer would differ from Scott's (so yes, good for you, there is a degree of subjectivity here...aren't you smart) but America prior to the tipping point (that is prior to whites being on track for minority status) is just fine. The America of 2000 was pretty damn good. But for someone a little more right wing minded, your argument is even more disingenuous, given that this country was like waaaaaay more than 90 percent white until the day before yesterday. Or, maybe you're just actually that stupid and didn't know. I'll split the difference.
Which Americans is he speaking about? I’d gladly live out my days in a single wide eating tuna from a can if it meant my line would be free of today’s tyranny and ethnic cleansing. Freaking out about $20 burritos isn’t in a vacuum — we’re also being discriminated against and having our progeny’s birthright stolen. The combination means something. It’s not about convenience, it’s about watching, feeling our standard of living decline in realtime as the stage is set for the blue tyrants to once again take the helm. Spoiler: vote harder will be the refrain. In the meantime “get used to it chuds, you demand too much and bootstrap” articles telling us to enjoy the slow boil. The issue is the lack of will to change because GDP line must go up.
There's line literally in the article saying the average person reading this piece would say "yes" to the question, but that would not be the average American. Thank you for not reading past the headline.
Patrick, the article is sympathetic to the problem you're claiming to want solved but presents the case that the average voter may be unprepared to make the sacrifices necessary to solve it. Instead of thinking about solutions to convince the average voter to make the tradeoffs you claim to desire, you get upset at the author for bringing up that there's a problem. Your behavior would suggest to an impartial observer that you don't actually care about this problem but just want to get mad about it online.