explodicle

Of course! Relax. It's more precise to be clear they're talking about people unhoused.

No, you'd have to say a bunch of other stuff around that quote too.

"Percentage of years positive" isn't as informative as average inflation, which has been significantly higher since the Nixon Shock.

Deunionization absolutely is a major factor around the same time, no disagreement there. We need more savings to strike effectively. We deserve to both earn and keep the full value of our labor - without being forced to invest in the exploitation of others.

I knew a full-on singulatarian who killed himself due to mental illness. Someone dying of despair will never preserve their brain for (what they see as) unending torture.

That is just a super mean thing to say. There's another person at the other end of the computers.

It reads like a sign on the wall written in cursive at my aunt's house.

Because it's an interesting point on its own. Upvotes aren't necessarily agreement.

I'm arguing that wages would increase in proportion to the economy, not that inflation would never be negative.

The Nixon Shock brought us inflation as we know it today. He lied that it would be temporary. The Keynesian rationale was adopted after the fact.

This argument is much weaker, but: most Republican economic policy sounds good at a surface level but actually hurts workers in practice. And I don't think that's by accident.

No, we absolutely do not. It's too late to stop gracefully - I cannot overstate how much worse it's going to get if we stop even now.

Consumption needs to go down, this will collapse the delicate house of cards we've built... and we have no other choice.

Wages did in fact grow in proportion to the economy before Nixon.

Are we using the same pool of neoliberal economists who brought us here?

I would consider that anarchist iff it's not hierarchical, yes.