Real life thread

PiSigma

"the engineer"
People are limited by their mindsets. If making a low six figure income is not enough for the desired standard of living, then look to earn much more rather than be held back by artificial limitations. In most places in the US, a six figure income is more than enough for a very comfortable standard of living. The reason it is not enough in some cities is because there are a lot of people making much more than that in those cities. By choosing where to live along with occupation, there is nothing stopping anyone from achieving a comfortable standard of living in the US.
It also comes down to what you want to spend money on and the median income. Making 300k+ in San Francisco means you are poor, but very well off in pretty much anywhere else. Have to look at the median income of the city. In SF, rent is $4000-5000 for a small apartment, remove a 0 for Nebraska.

In Calgary, median income for household is high (105k I think) , so if you are single, even if making 100000, still just average for a family even though personal income is high.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: W20
It also comes down to what you want to spend money on and the median income. Making 300k+ in San Francisco means you are poor, but very well off in pretty much anywhere else. Have to look at the median income of the city. In SF, rent is $4000-5000 for a small apartment, remove a 0 for Nebraska.

In Calgary, median income for household is high (105k I think) , so if you are single, even if making 100000, still just average for a family even though personal income is high.
Median income is a good ballpark metric, another more fine grained metric is what actual income percentile an individual or household's income would be for a given metropolitan area. P90 would generally be enough for a high standard of living, any excess income beyond that should be invested (resulting in earlier retirement).
 

quantumlight

Junior Member
Registered Member
People are limited by their mindsets. If making a low six figure income is not enough for the desired standard of living, then look to earn much more rather than be held back by artificial limitations. In most places in the US, a six figure income is more than enough for a very comfortable standard of living. The reason it is not enough in some cities is because there are a lot of people making much more than that in those cities. By choosing where to live along with occupation, there is nothing stopping anyone from achieving a comfortable standard of living in the US.

Inflation is real, but it is also uneven - it affects different localities and income strata differently. Pre 2012, people had the belief that a six figure income was what was required to enjoy a high standard of living. Since then, the bar has raised, and in the more expensive cities, that figure is now about a quarter million.
I live in DFW metroplex, one of the largest metroplexes with still telatively low cost of living index. Texas also one of the few States without State income tax. The point is if its hard to get by on 100k in DFW, its aint gonna be much easier anywhere else in America. Unless you want to live out in rural town middle of nowhere, but most people dont, even if remote work makes that more of a possibility going forwards. Medium income in America and even in dfw is well below 100k average, and DFW is one of the cheaper metroxplexes to live, so this proves my point exactly...

Telling people "you just have to earn more than average" is not something that scales, and is a mathematical impossibility at scale, if you think about it. Its also not indictive nor represents the reality that the average person in America is no longer able to meaningfully survive. Its the macroeconomic and thermodynamic reality dictated by deminishing energy supply thats driving the big picture. Increasing minimum wage is like rearranging chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic, yes some lucky individuals might manage to still earn more; but on the whole and in aggregrate there is no where to go but down for standards of living
 
Last edited:
I live in DFW metroplex, one of the largest metroplexes with still telatively low cost of living index. Texas also one of the few States without State income tax. The point is if its hard to get by on 100k in DFW, its aint gonna be much easier anywhere else in America. Unless you want to live out in rural town middle of nowhere, but most people dont, even if remote work makes that more of a possibility going forwards. Medium income in America and even in dfw is well below 100k average, and DFW is one of the cheaper metroxplexes to live, so this proves my point exactly...

Telling people "you just have to earn more than average" is not something that scales, and is a mathematical impossibility at scale, if you think about it. Its the macroeconomic and thermodynamic reality dictated by deminishing energy supply thats driving the big picture. Increasing minimum wage is like rearranging chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic, yes some lucky individuals might manage to still earn more; but on the whole and in aggregrate there is no where to go but down for standards of living
Well, less than 6% of the US is Asian, so making at least top 6% of income should be a good starting goal :)
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Median income is a good ballpark metric, another more fine grained metric is what actual income percentile an individual or household's income would be for a given metropolitan area. P90 would generally be enough for a high standard of living, any excess income beyond that should be invested (resulting in earlier retirement).
Don't think the P10, p50, p90 data is available for my city. I'm pretty sure my family income would be in the top 20% if not higher, but still feels pretty poor.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
It all comes back to "Peak Oil"... we haven't left the oil industry in fact most of the so-called renewables are derivatives of oil in that they require a preexisting oil infrastructure to be stood up and maintained in the first place.

If you look at modern financial and economic systems and things like fractional reserve banking, quantitative easing, the concept of interest rates and debt=money creation, etc then its obvious that the modern system depends on ever increasingly supplies of cheap, abundant AND higher EROEI energy sources, and frankly even if we could instantly covert to 100% renewables overnight, it still would come at the cost of bankrupting much of the globalized world that is solely dependant upon the sort of cheap credit afforded to us by petroleum and hydrocarbons... the top crude low sulfer sweet oil stuff... the energy ratio just isn't the same, not to mention this is a best case and the world right now is well less than 10% total renewables and with oil production in massive decline with nothing else like fusion or fast breeders or zero-point-energy on the horizon (the next immediate ten years) to pick up the slack..

What's a sure sign of collapse and cannibalization? Having money on paper but increasingly not being able to buy anything and things getting more expensive... also no society has ever been able to legislate nor print its way to wealth or riches... there is no cheating the second lawy of thermodynamics and the energy/entropy equations...

Back in 2014 I bought a then top of the line state of the art flagship Nvidia GPU graphics card for $599 at Frys electronics (GTX980) and that was the very high end of that era. CPU has not been improving at Moores laws rates since at least the early 2010... and only GPU was barely able to catch up or stay in line with the Moores law doubling.... but the price and power ratios have not been kept constant, the top of line GPU today from Nvidia costs about three times as much (if you can even find them), at the shelves at Fry's were barren/empty until recently Fry's itself went lights out and belly up... Not to mention the top graphics cards these days use a lot more power watts and so not only has it hit Dennard scaling issues but also economic issues (price skyrocketing) not to mention supply/inventory issues (even at inflated prices the last couple of Nvidia GPU launches have been paper launches with near zero inventory and one can only grab it on craiglists from scaplers for like $2299 for what used to be just $599 half a decade ago)....

So you say well this is in part due to the bitcoin craze or work from home? Well first off using GPU to mine bitcoins hasn't been profitable since around 2013, and there are dedicated ASIC miners specifically for the job, and while COVID has force a lot of work from home, the vast majority of the employees don't need a dedicate GPU for their work, and besides that couldn't explain why GPUs are now more power hungry than ever irrespective of costs...

Take joysticks for example, many years ago I bought a Thrustmaster Hotas combo for $45, now the same on amazon (when available) is over $100+, even more on ebay. Higher end joysticks have been inflated even more in price, and what used to cost $150 is now like $450... trust me the vast majority of people do not need a joystick to work at home... so the pundits blame it on the fact that Microsoft came out with the new Flight Simulator 2020, except Flight Simulator franchise has exists longer than Windows itself and it never caused a joystick shortage every other time there was a new version of Flight Simulator before!

I talked about recently upgrading late last year from Intel i7-4790k (from 2014) to a much newer Intel i9-9900k (eight cores, 16 threads) which affords me using the newer motherboard chipset that lets me go up to 128GB system memory compared to my cap of 32GB when on the older CPU. But in terms of performance benchmarks, it gave me overall on average maybe 3% framerate boost. Sure most games are GPU bound these days and CPU is not the bottleneck but even for non-gaming applications its not been following Moores Law for a long time now... only other option I looked at was getting the top AMD Threadripper with 32 cores, exciting but still not keeping up with Moores law in terms of performance and the price is 6x jump... the 32core Threadripper costs $2000 just for the CPU alone, just the one chip, nothing else.... so a computer build these days would end up costing several times what it used to cost, which is ironic since traditionally computers and electronics were one area in which costs only lowered over time, but even inflation is hitting electronics now too... and this cannot be blamed on the TSMC chip shortage because TSMC doesn't make Intel or desktop CPU chips...

I feel you are starting to go on a personal rant now.

We've already had a discussion about renewable solar having an energy payback period of 2 years, which means another 23+ years of net energy generation. Given that solar already has grid parity with oil/gas/coal (even in Texas), all the problems you mention are solvable.
You've got to escape the old Texas mindset of OIL=ENERGY.

---

Plus a lot of the inflation you are seeing is materialism at its worst.

Why would you need a top of the line GPU graphics card in the first place?

If all the computer games in the world were banned, I reckon it would be a net positive for the world.
People would become more sociable and also healthier from more outdoor exercise.
Alternatively, what's wrong with a fun low-resolution game with friends and family with an affordable console?

If you have the mindset that you're not happy with anything but the absolute best, of course companies are going to start creating ridiculously expensive products that are barely any improvement.

It's mindless American materialism at its worst, which aims to make people think they are unhappy if they don't have something.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
In NZ the minimum wage is $18.90 and is set to rise to $20 next month. We also have a living wage of $22 paid by some local govt/council and employers. However when one compares NZ to the U.S. using the MacDonalds chart, we are no better off than the folks in the U.S. on a minimum wage.

You've got to convert that 18.90 NZ$
It currently works out as 13.74 USD, compared with the US minimum wage of 7.25 USD.
So the minimum wage in New Zealand is roughly twice as high as the US minimum wage.

Plus you can't use the McDonald's PPP conversion, because it is only based on a single item.

But yes, New Zealand is generally more expensive because you guys barely have any people and are literally in the middle of nowhere.

My point is that governments should be aiming for a "living minimum wage" like in New Zealand, Europe, etc
Not for a "subsistence minimum wage" like the USA.

Can you imagine if New Zealand had a minimum wage like the USA?
You would already have a Trumpian nightmare created from the anger and despair of the lowest earners.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I live in DFW metroplex, one of the largest metroplexes with still telatively low cost of living index. Texas also one of the few States without State income tax. The point is if its hard to get by on 100k in DFW, its aint gonna be much easier anywhere else in America. Unless you want to live out in rural town middle of nowhere, but most people dont, even if remote work makes that more of a possibility going forwards. Medium income in America and even in dfw is well below 100k average, and DFW is one of the cheaper metroxplexes to live, so this proves my point exactly...

Telling people "you just have to earn more than average" is not something that scales, and is a mathematical impossibility at scale, if you think about it. Its also not indictive nor represents the reality that the average person in America is no longer able to meaningfully survive. Its the macroeconomic and thermodynamic reality dictated by deminishing energy supply thats driving the big picture. Increasing minimum wage is like rearranging chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic, yes some lucky individuals might manage to still earn more; but on the whole and in aggregrate there is no where to go but down for standards of living

Uh no.

A higher minimum wages generates MORE economic activity overall, by reallocating money from corporate profits to lower-income earners. And those lower-income earners tend to spend most of it, which has a higher economic multiplier effect.

Look up the literature yourself.
 

quantumlight

Junior Member
Registered Member
We've already had a discussion about renewable solar having an energy payback period of 2 years,

Thats precisely the point, you know what has an energy payback of zero days? Oil...

You cant expect to convert the entire world to renewable sources with energy paybacks orders of magnitude worse than the low hanging fruit of crude oil and think the modern global system built around it wont be negatively impacted to say the least.

Nevermind the fact that the world is nowhere near or even close to reaching majority renewables anytime this decade or the next, and its proven that petroleum production globally is, has been, and will confinue to be on the decline at the very same time renewables arent ramping up fast enough to cover and you seem to be bragging about a 2 year energy payback like its some good thing all the while expecting the global system to largely remain business as usual?

Ludicrious
 

PiSigma

"the engineer"
Uh no.

A higher minimum wages generates MORE economic activity overall, by reallocating money from corporate profits to lower-income earners. And those lower-income earners tend to spend most of it, which has a higher economic multiplier effect.

Look up the literature yourself.
I agree with this. Alberta have a $15 min wage, and it's been great for the lower income households. What it is not good for are the teenagers looking for a summer job or college students looking for part time work. Companies would rather hire someone more mature that would stay on the position for longer (worth the money spent on training).
 
Top